Contract Management
Proteges Value DOD's Mentor-Protege Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement Gao ID: GAO-07-151 January 31, 2007Congress authorized the Mentor-Protege Program to boost the participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and suppliers under Department of Defense (DOD) and other contracts. The program provides incentives to major defense contractors (mentors) to help small disadvantaged businesses (proteges) strengthen their ability to compete for contracts. GAO administered a Web-based survey to determine whether former proteges believe the program enhanced their business development; examined the accuracy of the Mentor-Protege Program Office's annual reporting to Congress; determined whether DOD reported on the progress of former proteges and their contributions to small business goals; and, identified how program funds have been obligated and used.
Most of the 48 former proteges that responded to GAO's questionnaire reported that the Mentor-Protege Program was a valuable experience and enhanced business development. Ninety-three percent of responding proteges reported the Mentor-Protege Program enhanced, at least to some degree, their firms' overall capabilities. While proteges also attributed increases in contracts and revenues as a result of their participation in the program, about one-quarter reported that the program had no impact on gaining new contracts or on increasing revenues. Although DOD's annual reports to the Congress indicate the program has increased business opportunities, the accuracy of these reports is questionable, primarily because the data are not validated before the reports are submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual report to Congress, based on mentor-prepared reports on protege progress, but the Defense Contract Management Agency does not complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports until the following September. In addition, many of the validations are incomplete or not done at all. GAO could not measure the contribution of the Mentor-Protege Program to the statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of DOD's contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. To do this, the progress of those proteges completing the program since the program's inception would need to be identified. This data is not available. Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protege Program's funds, which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The mentors were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided to proteges either directly or indirectly. Defense Contract Management Agency reviews determined that the reimbursements received by mentors during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-151, Contract Management: Proteges Value DOD's Mentor-Protege Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-151
entitled 'Contract Management: Protégés Value DOD's Mentor-Protégé
Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement' which was
released on January 31, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2007:
Contract Management:
Protégés Value DOD's Mentor-Protégé Program, but Annual Reporting to
Congress Needs Improvement:
GAO-07-151:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-151, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress authorized the Mentor-Protégé Program to boost the
participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and
suppliers under Department of Defense (DOD) and other contracts. The
program provides incentives to major defense contractors (mentors) to
help small disadvantaged businesses (protégés) strengthen their ability
to compete for contracts. GAO administered a Web-based survey to
determine whether former protégés believe the program enhanced their
business development; examined the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé
Program Office‘s annual reporting to Congress; determined whether DOD
reported on the progress of former protégés and their contributions to
small business goals; and, identified how program funds have been
obligated and used.
What GAO Found:
Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to GAO‘s questionnaire
reported that the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and
enhanced business development. Ninety-three percent of responding
protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced, at least to some
degree, their firms‘ overall capabilities. While protégés also
attributed increases in contracts and revenues as a result of their
participation in the program, about one-quarter reported that the
program had no impact on gaining new contracts or on increasing
revenues.
Figure: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of Figure]
Although DOD‘s annual reports to the Congress indicate the program has
increased business opportunities, the accuracy of these reports is
questionable, primarily because the data are not validated before the
reports are submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits
its annual report to Congress, based on mentor-prepared reports on
protégé progress, but the Defense Contract Management Agency does not
complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports until the
following September. In addition, many of the validations are
incomplete or not done at all.
GAO could not measure the contribution of the Mentor-Protégé Program to
the statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of DOD‘s contracting
dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. To do this, the progress of
those protégés completing the program since the program‘s inception
would need to be identified. This data is not available.
Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program‘s
funds, which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The
mentors were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided
to protégés either directly or indirectly. Defense Contract Management
Agency reviews determined that the reimbursements received by mentors
during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take a number of actions
to better evaluate the performance of DOD‘s Mentor-Protégé Program and
to improve annual reporting on the program to the Congress.
DOD concurred with GAO‘s findings and recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-151].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Anne Calvaresi-Barr at
(202) 512-4841 calvaresibarra@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Former Protégés Value Mentor-Protégé Program:
Accuracy of Statutorily Required Annual Reporting Is Questionable:
Requirement to Report Trends in Progress Made by Former Protégés Has
Not Been Met:
Mentor-Protégé Program Funds Reimburse Mentors, Protégés, and Cover
Program Operational Costs:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Results Attributable to Mentoring:
Mentor's Support Provided to Protégés:
Level of Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Willingness to Recommend
the Program to Others:
Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness:
Appendix IV: Composition of Responding Protégé Firms:
Developmental Assistance Providers:
North American Industry Classification System Codes:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Semi-
Annual Reports:
Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006
Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006 (Dollars in
Millions):
Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés:
Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development Assistance
to Protégés:
Figures:
Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation:
Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to the
Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly Attributable
to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to the
Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certification Directly Attributable to
the Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support:
Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support:
Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the Mentor-
Protégé Program:
Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Provided a
Valuable Experience:
Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the Mentor-
Protégé Program to Other Eligible Firms:
Figure 13: Mentors' Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring:
Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and Engineering
or Technical Expertise:
Abbreviations:
CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration:
DCMA: Defense Contract Management Agency:
DOD: Department of Defense:
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System:
SDB: Small Disadvantaged Business:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 31, 2007:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Warner:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skeleton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Each year, the Department of Defense (DOD) obligates hundreds of
billions of dollars in contracts for goods and services. To boost the
participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and
suppliers under DOD and other federal and commercial contracts,
Congress authorized a pilot Mentor-Protégé Program. The program, which
was authorized in 1990[Footnote 1] and has been continually renewed,
provides incentives for major defense contractors (mentors) to help
small disadvantaged businesses (protégés) strengthen their ability to
compete for defense and other federal contracts as well as commercial
contracts.
To ensure that the program is focused on a results-oriented approach to
assessing program performance, Congress has required DOD to report
annually on trends in the progress made in employment, revenues, and
participation in DOD contracts of protégé firms and former protégé
firms.[Footnote 2] Congress also required GAO to study the program's
effectiveness.[Footnote 3] In responding to this mandate, we:
* determined whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé Program
enhanced their business development,
* assessed the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual
reporting to Congress,
* determined if the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the
progress of former protégés and how their progress helped DOD
contribute to the statutory objective[Footnote 4] of awarding 5 percent
of its contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses, and:
* identified how Mentor-Protégé Program funds have been obligated and
used.
In performing our work, we administered a Web-based survey to protégés
that completed or left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
obtaining a 63 percent response rate. We reviewed mentor-prepared semi-
annual reports, designed to quantify the progress made under active
mentor-protégé agreements, and we examined the Defense Contract
Management Agency's (DCMA) audit of those reports. In addition, we
interviewed protégés, mentors, and Mentor-Protégé Program Office
officials. We also obtained funding data from the Mentor-Protégé
Program Office and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that
costs incurred were reasonable. A complete statement of our methodology
is in appendix I. We conducted our review from March 2006 to October
2006, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to our survey reported
that the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and helped
enhance their business development. About 87 percent of responding
protégés reported that support from their mentors helped their business
development and corporate infrastructure. About 84 percent stated that
mentor support enhanced their engineering or technical expertise; one-
fourth directly linked their participation in the program to their
ability to meet International Organization for Standardization[Footnote
5] quality standards; and over one-fifth responded they had received
additional training and certifications, such as manufacturing process
and control training or Capability Maturity Model Integration[Footnote
6] certifications. Protégés also reported quantifiable business growth.
For example, protégés collectively attributed 95 new contracts and
about $131 million in increased revenue to their participation in the
program. Further, about 63 percent reported an increase in employees.
Despite the overall value protégés attributed to the program, about one-
quarter reported that the program had no impact on gaining new
contracts or on increasing revenues.
The accuracy of DOD's annual reports to the Congress is questionable,
primarily because the data are not validated before the reports are
submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual
report to Congress, which is based on mentor-prepared reports on
protégé progress, but DCMA does not complete its validation of the
mentor-prepared reports until the following September. In addition,
many of the validations are incomplete, and some mentor-prepared
reports are not validated at all. In fiscal year 2004, for example, 40
of the 183 active agreements were not reviewed at all, and 30 percent
of the mentor-prepared reports did not have protégés' signatures and/or
concurrence, as required to help corroborate data accuracy. If the data
are flawed, the report could overstate or understate the success of the
program. Yet, DOD does not know the extent of the validation problem or
the overall effectiveness of the program because it does not summarize
the audits in a meaningful comprehensive report to assess what the
findings of the DOD audits mean, how the DOD findings affect the
program's operation, or identify any corrective actions that need to be
taken to make the program more effective.
Until April 2006, DOD did not attempt to report on the trends of the
progress made by protégés after they completed the program, as required
by the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. Although
Mentor-Protégé Program agreements signed since February 2000 required
protégés to report their progress for 2 years after they complete the
program, they were not doing so. According to protégés we interviewed,
they either were unaware or had forgotten that they had agreed to this
reporting requirement. Program office officials, when asked if they
sent letters to former protégés as a reminder to comply with the 2-year
reporting requirement, said the first such letter was sent in April
2006, after GAO asked to see the progress reports. Even if the 2-year
post-agreement reporting requirement had been met, we could not
determine the contribution of the program to the statutory objective of
awarding 5 percent of DOD's contracting dollars to small disadvantaged
businesses. To make this determination would require knowing the
progress of those protégés completing the program since the program's
inception; this information is unavailable.
Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program's
funds, which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The
mentors were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided
to protégés, either directly or indirectly, by subcontracting to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions,
and certain government-sponsored groups--procurement technical
assistance centers and small business development centers. Funds were
also obligated to reimburse protégés for their incidental costs, such
as travel, and to cover the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's operational
costs. DCMA reviews determined that the reimbursements received by
mentors during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable.
We are making recommendations to improve the accuracy and completeness
of the Mentor-Protégé annual reports to Congress, which should help to
better assist in evaluating the program. In written comments on a draft
of this report, DOD concurred with our findings and recommendations,
indicating that implementation of our recommendations is already
underway. DOD stated that these actions are expected to fully address
GAO's recommendations and are scheduled to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2007.
Background:
Congress established, as an objective for DOD, the goal of awarding 5
percent of the amount contracted by DOD and subcontracted by DOD's
prime contractors to small disadvantaged businesses. The 5 percent goal
was not met in the years immediately following its establishment
because, according to large DOD prime contractors, there were not
enough qualified small disadvantaged businesses available as DOD
subcontractors.
Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1991 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot Mentor-
Protégé Program. The purpose of the program is to provide incentives
for major DOD contractors (mentors) to furnish small disadvantaged
businesses (protégés[Footnote 7]) with assistance designed to enhance
their capabilities and increase their participation as subcontractors
and suppliers under DOD contracts, other federal government contracts,
and commercial contracts. Since the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program was
authorized, it has been continuously extended. With the passage of the
Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD is now
authorized to approve new agreements through September 30, 2010, and
program performance is authorized through September 30, 2013.
DOD's Office of Small Business Programs manages the Mentor-Protégé
Program. Each year, as required by the fiscal year 2000 authorizing
statute,[Footnote 8] DOD submits to Congress an annual report on the
trends in the progress made in employment, revenues, and participation
in DOD contracts by protégé firms. To satisfy the requirements of the
fiscal year 2000 authorizing statute, DOD's implementing regulations
require (1) mentors to report on the progress made under active mentor-
protégé agreements, semi-annually, throughout the term of an agreement,
and (2) protégés to report progress in each of the 2 years following
the completion of their agreements. In addition, DCMA is to conduct
annual performance reviews to verify whether the mentors and protégés
accurately reported progress and to determine that all costs reimbursed
to mentors were reasonably incurred in accordance with the statute and
applicable regulations.
From the program's inception through fiscal year 2006, Congress has
appropriated $437.7 million to the program, and DOD has approved 910
mentor-protégé agreements. Funding covers program operational costs and
reimburses mentors for providing developmental assistance. Mentor-
protégé agreements are usually limited to a 3-year period. At the end
of July 2006, there were 149 active mentor-protégé agreements.
This report is one of a series we have issued on the Mentor-Protégé
Program. We reported on the Mentor-Protégé Program in 1992,[Footnote 9]
1994,[Footnote 10] 1998,[Footnote 11] and 2001.[Footnote 12] In our
first report, one of our recommendations was that DOD develop and
implement adequate internal controls in the application and approval
process and in the oversight of protégé development. In our subsequent
reports, we found DOD did not have sufficient data to adequately assess
the program's performance in meeting its objectives. Among other
things, we recommended that DOD gather more complete information on
program performance by strengthening performance reviews and seeking
protégé feedback on the extent to which the program had resulted in
additional contracting and subcontracting opportunities. DOD concurred
with our recommendations to strengthen its data collection and
performance reviews, but stated that asking protégés how the program
has resulted in additional contracting and subcontracting would be an
imposition to protégés. We disagreed because, within the context of
statutory reporting requirements, DOD should remind protégés to report
on how the program had resulted in contracting and subcontracting
opportunities.
Most Former Protégés Value Mentor-Protégé Program:
To determine whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé Program
enhanced their business development, we administered a Web-based survey
and received responses from 48 of the 76 protégés that completed or
left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Ninety-three
percent of protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced, at
least to some degree, their firms' overall capabilities. About 87
percent reported that support from their mentors helped their
businesses' development, and about 84 percent stated that mentor
support helped their engineering or technical expertise. As an example
of specific development support, about 71 percent of protégés reported
receiving help with their quality management programs, with one-fourth
directly linking the assistance they received to their ability to meet
International Organization for Standardization quality standards, which
increased their business competitiveness. Over one-fifth responded that
they had received additional training and certifications, such as
manufacturing process and control training or Capability Maturity Model
Integration certifications. Finally, nearly 98 percent of the protégés
reported that they would recommend the program to other small
businesses eligible to participate in the program.
In terms of the level of satisfaction, our survey found about 71
percent of protégés were at least generally satisfied with their
experience, with reasons ranging from enhanced capabilities and
heightened exposure in the marketplace, to quantifiable business
growth. Nearly 80 percent of protégés reported that their mentors
provided the anticipated type and level of mentoring. The overall
results also indicate that the majority of responding protégés directly
attributed some degree of business growth to their participation in the
program. Measures of this growth include the number and dollar value of
contracts received, overall revenues, new employee hiring, and new
certifications. For example, protégés collectively attributed 95 new
contracts and about $131 million in increased revenues, to their
participation in the program.
About 15 percent of the protégés reported dissatisfaction with their
participation and about 21 percent responded that they did not receive
the level of mentoring that they had anticipated. Reasons for
dissatisfaction included a lack of mentor commitment to the program,
mentor failure to meet the objectives of mentor-protégé agreements, and
costs to the protégés that exceeded the return from participation.
Furthermore, about 28 percent of protégés reported that their program
participation did not produce increases in their contracts and nearly
one-quarter reported no impact on revenues.
Figure 1 illustrates the extent to which protégés attributed the
enhancement of their overall capabilities as well as increases in
contracts, dollar value of contracts, certifications, revenues, and
additional employees to the Mentor-Protégé Program.
Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
Note: The percents are rounded and do not include responses of no basis
to judge and not applicable.
[End of figure]
Appendixes II through IV provide detailed information on the results of
our survey.
Accuracy of Statutorily Required Annual Reporting Is Questionable:
The accuracy of statutorily required annual reporting is questionable
because DOD's annual performance reviews of mentor-protégé agreements,
designed to verify the accuracy of progress made by protégés, are not
completed until after DOD sends its annual report to Congress.
Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual report to Congress.
This report is based on mentor-prepared reports on protégé progress,
but DOD does not complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports
until the following September. In addition, not all of the mentor-
protégé agreements are reviewed; many of the reviews are incomplete;
and many reports were not signed and/or concurred to by protégés. The
protégé's signature and concurrence are required to provide
corroborating support of the data submitted by mentors. Further, the
overall message of the performance reviews is unknown because the
reviews, which consist of over a hundred individual audits each year,
are not summarized into a single report to assess what the findings of
its audits mean, how these findings affect the program's operation, and
to identify any corrective actions that need to be taken to make the
program more effective.
The Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress,
dated March 31, 2006, shows the trends in the progress of protégé
employment, revenues, and participation in DOD contracts during fiscal
year 2005. The information in this report and previous annual reports
sent to Congress was derived from mentor-prepared semi-annual reports,
which had not been reviewed by DCMA. For example, the DCMA annual
performance reviews of the fiscal year 2005 mentor-prepared semi-annual
reports were not completed until September 2006, 6 months after the
Mentor-Protégé Program Office reported to Congress.
We analyzed the results of DCMA's review of the fiscal years 2003 and
2004 reports, which are shown in table 1. In sum, not all of the mentor-
protégé agreements were reviewed, many reports were not signed and/or
concurred to by protégés, and many of the reviews were incomplete.
Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Semi-
Annual Reports:
Areas of Analysis: Active agreements;
FY 2003: 189;
FY 2004: 183.
Areas of Analysis: Active agreements with reports reviewed;
FY 2003: 125;
FY 2004: 143.
Areas of Analysis: Active agreements not reviewed;
FY 2003: 64 (34%);
FY 2004: 40 (22%).
Areas of Analysis: Reports without protégé signature and/or indication
of concurrence or non-concurrence;
FY 2003: 34 (27%);
FY 2004: 43 (30%).
Areas of Analysis: Reports reviewed without verification of all the
metrics;
FY 2003: 28 (22%);
FY 2004: 21 (15%).
Source: GAO analysis of DCMA reviews of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 semi-
annual reports:
[End of table]
Requirement to Report Trends in Progress Made by Former Protégés Has
Not Been Met:
Although the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act
established the requirement for DOD to report on the trends in the
progress of former protégés for agreements entered into on or after
October 1, 1999, the requirement has not been met. Pursuant to the Act,
protégés are to report their progress in employment, revenues, and
participation in DOD contracts in each of the 2 years following the
completion of their agreements. The Mentor-Protégé Program agreement
application template was revised in February 2000 to require protégés
to sign a statement indicating their willingness to comply with the
program's reporting requirements, including the 2-year post-agreement
requirement. The Act also required DCMA to determine whether protégés
are accurately reporting data during the 2-year post-agreement period.
Accordingly, DCMA's implementing guidance states that if the data are
either not provided or are not verifiable, the DCMA report should
provide the reason why.
Despite the Act and DCMA's guidance, the 2-year post-agreement-
reporting requirement has not been met, and DCMA did not explain in its
annual performance reviews that protégé annual reporting data had not
been provided.
The protégés we interviewed told us that after their agreement period,
they either forgot that they had agreed to the reporting requirement or
were not aware of the requirement from the beginning. DCMA officials
acknowledged that the reporting shortfall was the result of DCMA not
following its own policy. Finally, when we asked Mentor-Protégé Program
office officials whether they sent letters to former protégés as a
reminder to comply with the 2-year reporting requirement, they said
that the first such letter was sent on April 17, 2006, after we first
asked about compliance with the 2-year reporting requirement. Program
Office officials advised us, in October 2006, that 48 percent of the
protégés they attempted to contact[Footnote 13] responded to the
reminder letter.
Part of our requirement to review the Mentor-Protégé Program was to
determine if the Mentor-Protégé Program office reports on the progress
of former protégés and how their progress helps DOD contribute to the
statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of its contracting dollars to
small disadvantaged businesses. Even if the 2-year post-agreement
reporting requirement had been met, we could not determine the
contribution of the program to the statutory objective of awarding 5
percent of DOD's contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses.
To make this determination would require knowing the progress of those
protégés completing the program since the program's inception; this
information is not available.
Mentor-Protégé Program Funds Reimburse Mentors, Protégés, and Cover
Program Operational Costs:
Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program's
funds were obligated to mentors.[Footnote 14] The mentors were
reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided to protégés,
either directly or indirectly, by subcontracting to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and certain
government-sponsored groups--procurement technical assistance centers
and small business development centers. Funds were also obligated to
reimburse protégés for their incidental costs, such as travel, and to
cover the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's operational costs. The
services are responsible for managing reimbursable mentor-protégé
agreements and do so by either modifying existing contracts or awarding
new ones.
Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006
Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006 (Dollars in
Millions):
Fiscal year: 2004;
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $25.006;
Obligated funds: Mentors: $18.155;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $1.357;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $1.206;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.190;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: 0;
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.730;
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $3.362;
Obligated funds: Totals: $25.000;
Un-Obligated Funds: $.006.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $19.325;
Obligated funds: Mentors: $10.837;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $1.859;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $.934;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.169;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: 0;
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.481;
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $3.787;
Obligated funds: Totals: $18.068;
Un-Obligated Funds: $1.257.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $25.543;
Obligated funds: Mentors: $15.250;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $.251;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $.479;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.042;
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: $.078;
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.149;
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $1.936;
Obligated funds: Totals: $18.185;
Un-Obligated Funds: $7.358.
Source: Mentor-Protégé Program Office:
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
[A] Funds reflect the effect of DOD reprogramming actions.
[B] HBCU--Historically Black Colleges and Universities are accredited
institutions of higher education with the principal mission of
educating African Americans.
[C] MI--Minority institutions are accredited institutions of higher
education whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of
minorities (American Indian; Alaskan Native; African American; not of
Hispanic origin; Hispanic, including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, and Central or South American origin; Pacific Islander, and/or
other ethnic group underrepresented in science and engineering),
exceeds 50 percent of the enrollment or 25 percent of the enrollment if
of Hispanic origin.
[D] PTAC--Procurement technical assistance centers provide assistance
in marketing products and services to the federal, state, and local
governments. The Defense Logistics Agency administers the DOD
procurement technical assistance program.
[E] SBDC--Small business development centers are administered by the
SBA to assist small business owners by providing a wide variety of
information and guidance in central and easily accessible branch
locations.
[End of table]
As part of its performance reviews of Mentor-Protégé agreements, DCMA
is responsible for determining whether the costs reimbursed to mentor
firms were reasonable. For the agreements reviewed by DCMA for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, the costs claimed by mentors were determined to be
reasonable. DCMA had not completed its review of the fiscal years 2005
and 2006 agreements at the time of our review.
Conclusions:
The Mentor-Protégé Program has clearly been of value to the majority of
protégés that responded to our survey. However, DOD is not measuring
the impact of the program on participating and former protégé firms, as
Congress intended. Until DOD does so, by obtaining and validating the
data Congress requested to measure success, neither DOD nor Congress
will have the information it needs to oversee the program.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better evaluate the success of the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program and to
improve annual reporting to Congress, we recommend that the Secretary
of Defense:
* direct DCMA to ensure that all Mentor-Protégé agreements are audited
in accordance with DOD regulations and DCMA guidance and that these
audits are summarized into a single report so that the Mentor-Protégé
Program Office and Congress have reliable data on whether the program
is accomplishing its goals and to determine whether any corrective
action is necessary, and:
* direct DOD's Office of Small Business to submit its annual report to
Congress only after the data in the report have been validated by DCMA
and require that the annual report contain information on the progress
of protégés for 2 years following their completion of the Mentor-
Protégé Program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
findings and recommendations, stating that the implementation of a new
DCMA guidebook and revised reporting processes will address the
recommendations. DOD expects to complete the revised reporting
processes by the end of fiscal year 2007. DOD also noted in its
response that many of the recommendations regarding reporting
requirements were already being addressed through restructuring and
procedural changes that have been underway within DCMA. This is not an
accurate depiction of DOD's actions. It was as a result of our work
that the Small Business Office became aware of the reporting
deficiencies. Only then did the Small Business Office identify actions
to address these deficiencies.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested
congressional committees. We will also make copies available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have questions about this report or need additional information,
please contact me at (202) 512-6986 or calvaresi-barra@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report were James Fuquay, Assistant Director; Greg Campbell, Daniel
Hauser, Stewart Kaufman, Sean Merrill, Charlie Shivers, and Karen
Thornton.
Signed by:
Ann Calvaresi-Barr:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In the absence of data to determine whether former protégés believe the
Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced their business development and
translated into growing their businesses, we designed and administered
a Web-based survey. We pretested the survey with two protégé firms to
determine whether (1) the questions were clear, (2) the terms used were
precise, (3) the questions were unbiased, and (4) the survey did not
place an undue burden on the respondents. Based on the pretests, we
made changes to our final survey. In coordination with the Mentor-
Protégé Program Office, we identified a universe of 79 protégés that
had either completed or terminated Mentor-Protégé agreements during
fiscal years 2004 and 2005. We subsequently determined that three
protégés would not be included in our survey because two had active
agreements and one had no contact information. We selected former
protégé firms to reduce the potential for bias responses that could
result from protégés with active agreements. Of the 76 eligible
protégés that were sent the survey, 48 responded, representing a
response rate of 63 percent. The survey consisted of open-ended and
close-ended questions to characterize protégé firms' demographics as
well as obtain information on their program participation experiences,
the adequacy of mentoring, the results attributable to mentoring, and
protégés' overall assessment of the program. We did not independently
verify the data provided by the protégés. We supplemented the survey by
interviewing officials from five protégé firms with active or recently
completed agreements. These interviews were conducted to determine if
current protégés had opinions of the program that were inconsistent
with our survey findings. We also interviewed officials from four
mentor firms to obtain their views on the value of their agreements
with protégés.
To assess the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual
reporting to Congress, we reviewed (1) the program's statutory
reporting requirements, (2) DCMA mentor-protégé reporting regulations,
(3) DCMA reviews of the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 mentor-prepared semi-
annual reports, and (4) the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006
Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual reports. We also held
discussions with officials from the program office, DCMA, and the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
To determine whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the
progress of former protégés, we reviewed its reports to Congress and
held discussions with program office officials. We also interviewed
protégés and mentors, asking them if they were aware of the protégés'
post-agreement reporting requirement.
Finally, we obtained DOD funding data for the Mentor-Protégé Program
and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that program costs
incurred were reasonable. We also reviewed the DCMA audits of those
agreements that were reviewed by DCMA for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal
year 2004.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Results Attributable to Mentoring:
We asked protégé firms to respond to questions related to the business
growth and whether that growth was attributable to their participation
in the Mentor-Protégé Program. The questions addressed increases in the
number of contracts, revenue increases, expanding numbers of employees,
and additional business certifications. The overall results indicate
that the majority of responding protégés directly attributed some
degree of business growth to their participation in the program for all
of the topics discussed above.
The following bar graphs illustrate how protégés attributed increases
in contracts, dollar value of contracts, revenues, employees,
certifications, and enhancement of overall capabilities to their
participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program. The graphs represent the
responses of all 48 protégés responding to our survey. The narrative
accompanying each graph represents the responses of the subset of the
protégés that elected to attribute specific values to each metric.
Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to the
Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The actual number of increased contracts reported ranged from 1 to 20
contracts, with an average number of contracts of nearly 2, a median of
2, and a mode of 1 contract, among 26 protégés that reported specific
contract number increases.
Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The actual increase in contract dollar value reported ranged from
$100,000 to $20 million, with an average dollar value over $750,000, a
median increase of $530,000, and a mode increase of $500,000, among 18
protégés that reported specific increases in contract dollar value.
Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly Attributable
to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The overall increase in revenue reported ranged from $25,000 to $75
million, with an average revenue increase of over $5.2 million, a
median increase of $1 million, and a mode increase of $1.5 million,
among 25 protégés that reported specific increases in overall revenue.
Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to the
Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The extent of increase in employees reported ranged from 1 to 500
employees, with an average increase of 44 employees, a median increase
of 17 employees, and a mode increase of 1 employee, among 23 protégés
that reported specific increases in employees.
Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certifications Directly Attributable to
the Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The extent of increase in the number of certifications reported ranged
from 1 to 60 certifications, with an average increase of 5
certifications, a median increase of 1 certification, and a mode
increase of 1 certification, among 27 protégés that reported specific
increases in certifications.
Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
The vast majority of protégés reported that some degree of enhancement
of overall capabilities was attributable to their participation in the
program, with 15 reporting the program provided enhancements to a great
or very great extent.
Mentor's Support Provided to Protégés:
The figures below portray the types of support that protégés received
through participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program. Figure 8 shows the
different types of business management and corporate infrastructure
support and the number of protégés reporting support for each type.
Figure 9 shows the different types of engineering or technical support
and the number of protégés receiving support for each type.
Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
Level of Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Willingness to Recommend
the Program to Others:
To determine former protégés' overall assessment of the Mentor-Protégé
Program, we asked (1) how satisfied or dissatisfied participants were
with the program; (2) whether the Mentor-Protégé experience was
valuable (regardless of whether participants realized an increase in
contracts and/or revenues); and (3) if they would recommend
participation in the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program to other eligible small
firms. The following bar graphs present how the protégés responded to
these questions.
Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the Mentor-
Protégé Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Provided a
Valuable Experience:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the Mentor-
Protégé Program to Other Eligible Firms:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness:
Of the 48 protégés that responded to the survey, 42, or about 88
percent, completed the agreement they signed with their mentors. For
the six protégés that terminated their agreement before it was
scheduled to end, two reported their agreements were terminated early
because their companies no longer qualified for the program and four
reported that they chose to end their participation in the program. For
the two agreements that ended because of a change in their eligibility,
one reported that it grew out of its small business status, and the
other reported that it was acquired by a publicly traded large
business. For the four protégés that chose to terminate their
agreements, the reported reasons for their decision included high cost
both in resources and money, the program's paperwork burden, and a lack
of commitment from their mentor.
Of the protégés that responded to questions regarding their mentors'
ability to provide the anticipated type and level of mentoring, about
80 percent reported that their mentors provided the anticipated type
and level or mentoring. Figure 13 shows the specific reporting results.
Figure 13: Mentors' Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
Note: "Not Sure" responses are not included.
[End of figure]
To address the adequacy of mentoring specifically related to business
development and engineering or technical expertise, we asked protégés
to provide responses on their program experiences with both. Their
responses are depicted in Figure 14. Most reported the mentoring they
received in both areas was helpful to some degree. However, 6 protégés,
or nearly 13 percent, reported that the business development mentoring
they received was not helpful, and 7 protégés, almost 16 percent,
reported that mentoring related to engineering or technical expertise
was not helpful.
Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and Engineering
or Technical Expertise:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses.
Note: Numbers include respondents providing actual responses, but do
not include "Not Applicable" or "Not Sure" responses.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Composition of Responding Protégé Firms:
Through analysis of the responses from the 48 protégé firms that
completed our survey, we were able to identify basic demographic
information for our respondents. For example, over 70 percent of
protégés reported having small and disadvantaged business status, and
just over 35 percent reported being women-owned small businesses. Table
3 depicts the socioeconomic categories reported by protégés.
Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés:
Reported Socioeconomic Category: Small disadvantaged business (SDB);
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 70.8%.
Reported Socioeconomic Category: SDB owned and controlled by an Indian
Tribe;
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 2.1%.
Reported Socioeconomic Category: Woman-owned small business;
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 35.4%.
Reported Socioeconomic Category: HUBZone small business;
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 10.4%.
Reported Socioeconomic Category: Service-disabled veteran-owned small
business;
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 4.2%.
Reported Socioeconomic Category: Other[A];
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 10.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.
[A] Other responses were specified by respondents and included minority-
owned business, veteran-owned business, former 8(a) business, small
business, and recently acquired by large business.
Notes: No Protégés reported being SDB owned and controlled by a Native
Hawaiian Organization or an Entity Employing the Severely Disabled.
Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and because
respondents could answer with more than one response.
[End of table]
The year that each responding protégé firm was established ranged from
1957 to 2001, with about 85 percent having been established within the
last 25 years and 60 percent opening for business between 1990 and
2001. In terms of business size, as many as 900 employees were reported
by protégés, with an average of 166 employees and a median of 76
employees. For gross revenue, nearly 45 percent reported receiving more
than $10 million in 2005 and about 85 percent earned at least $1
million. Protégés also reported that their percentage of current
business with DOD averaged almost 54 percent. The median was even
higher, at 65 percent of their total. Additionally, about 48 percent of
the protégé firms reported that they are currently working as a
subcontractor for their former mentor firm.
Developmental Assistance Providers:
We also asked protégés whether they received any of their developmental
assistance from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority
institutions, procurement technical assistance centers, and small
business development centers. The results are shown in table 4.
Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development Assistance
to Protégés:
Development assistance institution: Historically Black Colleges or
Universities;
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 47.8%.
Development assistance institution: Minority institutions;
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 10.0%.
Development assistance institution: Procurement technical assistance
centers;
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 19.5%.
Development assistance institution: Small business development centers;
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 23.8%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.
[A] Percentages adjusted to only reflect respondents that were sure of
their assistance providers.
Note: Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and
because respondents could answer with more than one response.
[End of table]
North American Industry Classification System Codes:
We asked protégés for their North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes. In total, 39 of 48 survey respondents provided 47
different NAICS codes that represent their businesses. It is not
unusual for a firm to have more than one NAICS code. Below are the code
descriptions reported that had at least four responding protégés. The
number beside each code description is the number of protégés reporting
the code description.
* Engineering services--14:
* Computer systems design services--11:
* Custom computer programming services--10:
* Other computer related services--10:
* Facilities support services--9:
* Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life
sciences--8:
* Computer facilities management services--7:
* Other management consulting services--5:
* Administrative management and general management consulting services-
-4:
* Remediation services--4:
* Environmental consulting services--4:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology, And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
Jan 10 2007:
Ms. Ann Calvaresi-Barr:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 "G" Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Calvaresi-Ban:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, `Contract Management: Protege's Value DoD's Mentor-Protégé
Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement (GAO Code
120530/GAO-07-151), dated December 7, 2006.
Although the Department concurs with the GAO findings, many of the
recommendations regarding reporting requirements were already being
addressed through restructuring and procedure changes within the
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) supported by the Department
of Defense Small Business Programs Office. The Department appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Linda B. Oliver:
Acting Director:
Small Business Programs Office:
Enclosure:
As stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated December 7, 2006 GAO Code 120530/GAO-07-151:
"Contract Management: Protege's Value DoD's Mentor Protégé Program, but
Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to insure that all
Mentor-Protégé agreements are audited in accordance with DoD
regulations and DCMA guidance and that these audits are summarized into
a single report so that the Mentor-Protégé Program Office and Congress
have reliable data on whether the program is accomplishing its goals
and to determine whether any corrective action is necessary.
DOD Response: Concur. Although the Department and DCMA (Defense
Contract Management Agency) concur with the GAO report, there is
additional information that was not addressed or referenced in the
report, which addressed conditions for 2003 and 2004. At that time,
responsibilities for the Mentor-Protégé Program were dispersed
throughout DCMA, which was at the time of the audit being restructured
to establish a separate DCMA Mentor-Protégé Division (DCMAC-CP) with
personnel dedicated to the Mentor-Protégé Program working closely with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services
to effect program improvement. The Mentor-Protégé Division Concept of
Operations and revised DCMA guidebook, Mentor-Protégé Program for Small
Business (OSD), were provided to GAO.
More specifically, annual Mentor-Protégé Agreement Performance Reviews
will now be completed three weeks prior to funding decision dates. An
Executive Summary will be prepared 45 days after the end of each fiscal
year to include: a summary of all reviews conducted, comments on mentor
performance, return on investment, percent of performance improvement
and milestone achievement. The Executive Summary will be prepared for
each of the military services with a consolidated report provided to
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Small Business Programs Office.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct DoD's Office of Small Business to submit its annual report to
Congress only after the data in the report have been validated by DCMA
and require that the annual report contain information on the progress
of Protégés for two years following their completion of the Mentor-
Protégé Program.
DOD Response: Concur. Under the revised DCMA Mentor-Protégé Program
procedures, a Post Agreement Workload has been established and as
agreements are completed, they are placed in a follow-up status. A
specific reporting format has been developed and will be sent to the
Protégé for each of the two years following completion of the
agreement. It will not be required of those Protégés who enter into
another agreement with the same or a new Mentor since they will be
required to report under that agreement.
It is anticipated that the implementation of the new guidebook and
revised reporting processes will address the GAO findings and
recommendations. The changeover to the new formats and reporting
requirements will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2007.
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L.
No. 101-510, § 831 (1990).
[2] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L.
No. 106-65, § 811(d) (1999).
[3] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 841 (2004).
[4] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Pub. L.
No. 99-661, § 1207 (1986), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323.
[5] The International Organization for Standardization is the world's
largest developer of standards. Suppliers meeting these standards have
wide acceptance within their vendor industry.
[6] A Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)® certification
confirms that a firm knows the value of establishing effective
processes. It is based on the premise that even a quality workforce
cannot perform its best when a firm's processes are not understood or
not operating effectively. CMMI can be used to guide process
improvement across a project, a division, or an entire organization.
CMMI helps integrate traditionally separate organizational functions,
set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for
quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising
current processes.
[7] Eligible protégés now consist of small disadvantage businesses,
8(a) certified firms, Women-Owned Small Businesses, firms that employ
severely disabled persons, service-disabled veteran-owned businesses,
historically underutilized business zone small business concerns,
Indian tribe-owned, and Native Hawaiian Organization-owned.
[8] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L.
No. 106-65, § 811 (1999).
[9] GAO, Defense Contracting: Interim Report on Mentor-Protégé Program
for Small Disadvantaged Firms, GAO/NSIAD-92-135 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
30, 1992).
[10] GAO, Defense Contracting: Implementation of the Pilot Mentor-
Protégé Program, GAO/NSIAD-94-101 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1994).
[11] GAO, Defense Contracting: Sufficient, Reliable Information on
DOD's Mentor-Protégé Program is Unavailable, GAO/NSIAD-98-92
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1998).
[12] GAO, Contract Management: Benefits of the DOD Mentor-Protégé
Program are Not Conclusive, GAO-01-767 (Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2001).
[13] Eight protégé companies had either gone out of business or had
been purchased by a larger company, precluding the program office from
contacting them.
[14] Mentor-Protégé appropriations are procurement funds, which can be
obligated over a 3 year period.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
