# Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations: Historical Development and Legal Authorities

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40855

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** November 28, 2012
- **Citation:** R40855

## Text

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native
Corporations: Historical Development and
Legal Authorities
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
November 28, 2012

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40855

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Summary
The widely reported increase in federal contract dollars awarded to Alaska Native Corporations
(ANCs) and their subsidiaries in recent years has generated congressional and public interest in
the legal authorities that govern contracting with these entities. Currently, federal agencies may
contract with ANCs or their subsidiaries under several different statutory authorities. These
include (1) the Armed Services Procurement Act (ASPA) and the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act (FPASA); (2) Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act; and (3) Section
15 of the Small Business Act. The identity of the procuring agency and the size of the ANC or
ANC-owned firm, in part, determine which authority is used in particular circumstances.
ASPA and FPASA, for example, generally give defense and civilian agencies, respectively, broad
authority to contract with any qualified, responsible source, including ANCs and their
subsidiaries. Contractors do not need to be “small” in size, or for-profit entities, as they generally
must be to receive contracts under the Small Business Act. ASPA and FPASA also authorize
agencies to make sole-source awards in certain circumstances (e.g., unusual and compelling
urgency), although such awards must be justified in writing and approved by agency officials.
Two sections of the Small Business Act also permit contracts with certain ANCs or their
subsidiaries. Section 8(a) of the act authorizes agencies to contract with small businesses owned
and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals or groups participating in
the “8(a) Program.” ANCs are deemed to be socially and economically disadvantaged, and ANCowned firms may participate in the 8(a) Program. Under Section 8(a), agencies may conduct
competitions in which only 8(a) firms may compete (i.e., set-asides), as well as make sole-source
awards in circumstances where such awards would not be permitted under ASPA or FPASA. 8(a)
contracts valued in excess of $4 million ($6.5 million for manufacturing contracts) must generally
be competed among 8(a) firms. However, Section 8(a) authorizes sole-source awards of such
contracts to 8(a) firms if (1) the contracting officer does not reasonably expect that at least two
8(a) firms will submit offers at a fair market price; or (2) the Small Business Administration
accepts the requirement on behalf of an 8(a) firm owned by an ANC or other disadvantaged
group. Sole-source contracts under the authority of Section 8(a) historically did not need to be
justified or approved. However, since 2009, agencies have been required to justify and obtain
approval for sole-source 8(a) contracts valued in excess of $20 million (base plus options).
Section 15 of the Small Business Act also authorizes set-asides (but not sole-source awards) for
various types of small businesses. ANC-owned small businesses not participating in the 8(a)
Program could receive awards under the authority of Section 15.
In addition, several other statutes create incentives for agencies to contract with ANCs or their
subsidiaries by, for example, allowing contracts with “large” ANCs to count toward federal prime
contractors’ goals for subcontracting with small businesses. Similarly, various appropriations
riders permit the Department of Defense to contract out functions performed by government
employees to ANCs without going through the customary competitive sourcing process.
Members of the 112th Congress have introduced legislation (H.R. 598, S. 236) that would
generally subject ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) Program to the same treatment as
individually owned firms. Among other things, this legislation would limit the circumstances in
which ANC-owned firms could receive sole-source awards valued in excess of $4 million ($6.5
million for manufacturing contracts) under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business
Act.

Congressional Research Service

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
The History of Contracting Programs for ANCs ............................................................................. 2
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and ANCs ...................................................................... 2
Creation of Alaska Native Corporations ............................................................................. 2
Definition of ANCs as Tribes .................................................................................................... 4
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 .............................. 4
8(a) Definition of Tribes...................................................................................................... 4
ANCs Deemed Economically Disadvantaged ........................................................................... 4
ANCs’ Economic Performance ........................................................................................... 5
Loss ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Recovery ............................................................................................................................. 6
Expansion ............................................................................................................................ 7
Legal Authorities Governing Contracting with ANCs ..................................................................... 8
General Contracting Authorities ................................................................................................ 8
General Small Business Authorities .......................................................................................... 9
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act ................................................................................... 11
Authorities in Native American Laws ..................................................................................... 17
5% “Subcontracting Bonus”.............................................................................................. 17
Credit Toward Prime Contractors’ Subcontracting Goals ................................................. 18
Small Disadvantaged Businesses for Purposes of Transportation Contracts .................... 19
Appropriations Riders Allowing Direct Conversion of DOD Functions................................. 20
Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress ..................................................................................... 21
Regulatory Developments.............................................................................................................. 22

Figures
Figure 1. Competition Requirements for the 8(a) Program ........................................................... 12

Tables
Table 1. “Special Rules” for Contracting with ANC-owned Firms Under Section 8(a) of
the Small Business Act ............................................................................................................... 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Introduction
The widely reported increase in federal contract dollars awarded to Alaska Native Corporations
(ANCs) and their subsidiaries in recent years has generated congressional and public interest in
the legal authorities governing contracting with these entities. Of particular interest are the
authorities creating the alleged “special procurement advantages” that ANC subsidiaries enjoy in
contracting under the Small Business Administration’s Minority Small Business and Capital
Ownership Development Program (commonly known as the 8(a) Program).1
According to some reports, federal contract dollars awarded to ANCs and their subsidiaries
increased by 916% between FY2000 and FY2008, going from $508.4 million to $5.2 billion.2
The dollars awarded to ANC-owned firms through the 8(a) Program, in particular, reportedly
tripled between FY2004 ($1.1 billion) and FY2008 ($3.9 billion).3 Critics are concerned about the
impact of these increases on other minority-owned businesses participating in the 8(a) Program,4
as well as the potential for fraud, waste, and abuse when agencies make sole-source awards to
ANCs or their subsidiaries.5 However, supporters of contracting programs for ANCs point out
that, even with the recent increases, contracting with ANCs and their subsidiaries represents a
small percentage of federal contract dollars.6 They also note that profits from federal contracts are
vital to improving the economic well-being of Alaska Natives.7
Members of the 112th Congress have introduced legislation (H.R. 598, S. 236) that would
generally subject ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) Program to the same treatment as
individually owned firms. Among other things, this legislation would preclude ANC-owned firms
from receiving sole-source awards valued in excess of $4 million ($6.5 million for manufacturing
contracts) under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Also, in 2011, SBA

1
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Small Business Administration, Participation in the 8(a) Program by Firms
Owned by Alaska Native Corporations, at 2 (July 10, 2009), available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
oig_reptbydate_july9-15_0.pdf.
2
U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
Majority Staff, New Information about Contracting Preferences for Alaska Native Corporations (Part I), at 1 (2009),
available at http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/
SubcommitteMajorityStaffAnalysisofPubliclyAvailableANCData62309.pdf?attempt=2.
3
Participation in the 8(a) Program, supra note 1, at 4. More recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
reported that the dollars obligated to “tribal 8(a) firms,” which include ANC-owned 8(a) firms, increased from $2.1
billion in FY2005 to $5.5 billion in FY2010, and that such firms got nearly one-third of all 8(a) obligations, although
they constituted only 6.2% of 8(a) firms. See Gov’t Accountability Office, Federal Contracting: Monitoring and
Oversight of Tribal 8(a) Firms Need Attention, GAO-12-84 (January 2012), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-12-84.
4
See, e.g., Northern Lights and Procurement Plights: The Effect of the ANC Program on Federal Procurement and
Alaska Native Corporations: Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Small
Business, House of Representatives, 109th Cong., 2d Sess., at 173-74 (2006) (statement of Harry Alford, President and
CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce) (characterizing ANCs as “predators on the minority business
community”).
5
See, e.g., id. at 161 (statement of Representative Henry A. Waxman).
6
See, e.g., Native American Contractors Association, Native American Contracting under Section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act: Economic, Social, and Cultural Implications, at 3 (October 2007) (copy on file with the authors) (noting
that, in FY2005, contracts with ANCs represented less than 1% of all federal contracts, less than 2% of all sole-source
contracts, less than 3% of all small business contracts, and less than 20% of all 8(a) contracts).
7
Id. at 11-12 (discussing the dividends paid and job opportunities provided by ANCs, among other things).

Congressional Research Service

1

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

promulgated regulations that seek to address alleged issues regarding ANCs’ participation in the
8(a) Program (e.g., requiring annual reporting on ANCs’ benefits to Alaska Natives).

The History of Contracting Programs for ANCs
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and ANCs
The Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) 8(a) minority contracting program slightly predates
the creation of Alaska Native Corporations. The 8(a) minority contracting program dates from the
late 1960s, when it was created administratively.8 The SBA considered Indian tribes eligible for
the 8(a) minority contracting program, as indicated by a September 1970 SBA pamphlet
encouraging Indian tribes and individuals to participate in the 8(a) Program.9

Creation of Alaska Native Corporations
ANCs were created under the authority of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA),10
enacted in 1971 to settle Alaska Natives’ aboriginal land claims to most of Alaska. Congress’s
stated intent in passing ANCSA—shared by Alaska Native organizations and the state of
Alaska—was to settle the claims
without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions ... without creating a
reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories
of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges.11

To carry out this intention, Congress authorized Native corporations, not tribes, to receive the
lands and monies awarded in the settlement. Unlike Indian trust lands, the corporations’ lands
would be held in fee simple and could be developed without federal approval.12
Congress intended ANCs to be vehicles for the economic development of Alaska Natives. The
conference report on ANCSA stated that
the Regional Corporations shall be organized as business for profit corporations…. [T]he
investment functions to be carried out by the [state-wide] Alaska Native Investment
Corporation [under the Senate version] have been assigned ... to the Regional Corporations.13

The intended functions of this state-wide Investment Corporation, according to the earlier Senate
committee report on its bill, were to:
8

See CRS Report R40744, The “8(a) Program” for Small Businesses Owned and Controlled by the Socially and
Economically Disadvantaged: Legal Requirements and Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
9
U.S. Small Business Administration, Developing Indian Owned Businesses Through the Assistance of the 8(a)
Program of the Small Business Administration (September 1970).
10
P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. §§1601-1629h).
11
Id. at §2(b); 43 U.S.C. §1601(b).
12
Robert D. Arnold, with Janet Archibald et al., Alaska Native Land Claims 106, 120, 274-76 (1976).
13
U.S. Congress, House Conference Committee, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Conference Report to
Accompany H.R. 10367, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., at 41-42 (1971).

Congressional Research Service

2

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

conduct business for profit activities and to provide a long-range return through dividends to
its Native stockholders. The Investment Corporation thus is intended to act as a prudent
businessman would, and to administer the Natives’ funds with the object of maximizing the
value of their stock and their future unrestricted income.14

ANCSA created four types of ANCs, all to be incorporated under state law:
•

12 regional corporations, based on the regions of 12 specified Alaska Native
associations, covering the entire state (plus a 13th regional corporation for Alaska
Natives permanently residing outside Alaska);

•

village corporations, for Alaska Native communities with populations of 25 or
more Natives;

•

group corporations, for Alaska Native communities with populations of fewer
than 25 Natives in which Natives constituted a majority; and

•

urban corporations, for urban Alaska Native communities.

An Alaska Native could become a voting shareholder in both the local regional corporation and
the local village, group, or urban corporation.
As compensation for settling the land claims, ANCSA provided for the conveyance of some 40
million acres (including subsurface rights) and $962.5 million to the ANCs, chiefly to the 12
regional corporations and the village corporations. The settlement lands were to be divided
among the 12 regional corporations based on the acreage of their regions and among the village
corporations based chiefly on their populations. Group and urban corporations were to receive a
set number of acres apiece. (Conveyance of title to the ANCs is the responsibility of the Bureau
of Land Management, which reported in its FY2013 budget justifications that 59% of the lands to
be conveyed had been surveyed and patented to the ANCs.)15 The settlement funds were to be
paid out over a number of years and divided among the regional corporations (including the 13th
corporation) based on their population. Each regional corporation was to distribute at least half of
its share of these funds to the village corporations in its region.
As noted above, the ANCs were to hold their ANCSA lands in private fee title, not in the trust
title usual for Indian lands, and subject to federal, state, and local taxation in specified
circumstances. The regional corporations were to operate as for-profit entities, and the village
corporations as either for-profit or non-profit entities. Their revenues from investment of their
settlement funds were to be subject to taxation.

14
U.S. Congress, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971: Report
to Accompany S. 35, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., at 105 (1971). See also Arnold et al., supra note 12, at 281.
15
U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2013, Bureau of Land
Management, at VIII-138 (2012), available at http://www.doi/gov/budget/appropriations/2013/upload/
FY2013_BLM_Greenbook.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

3

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Definition of ANCs as Tribes
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
Congress has taken several steps to assist ANCs. An important step in relation to the 8(a) Program
came in 1975, when Congress included regional and village ANCs in the definition of “Indian
tribe” in a major Indian law, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975:
“Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) which is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.16

8(a) Definition of Tribes
This 1975 definition of “Indian tribe” was used in two later amendments to the Small Business
Act. First, in 1978, the definition was incorporated by reference in an amendment specifying that
small businesses wholly owned by Indian tribes were eligible for the loan program implemented
under the authority of Section 7(a) of the act.17 Second, 1986 amendments to the Small Business
Act used the language of the 1975 definition when making “economically disadvantaged” Indian
tribes and ANCs eligible for the 8(a) Program.18 These 1978 and 1986 amendments to the Small
Business Act were each added after Indian tribes complained about SBA officials’ varying
opinions as to whether Indian tribes were eligible for the 7(a) and 8(a) Programs.19

ANCs Deemed Economically Disadvantaged
The 1986 amendments meant that tribes and ANCs still had to prove they were economically
disadvantaged to be eligible for the 8(a) Program. In 1988, ANCSA was amended to specify that
“Native Corporations” (ANCs) were to be considered “minority business enterprises” for all
purposes of federal law.20 Designation as minority business enterprises did not, however, lead the
SBA to deem ANCs to be economically as well as socially disadvantaged. According to 1991
testimony of the Alaska Federation of Natives,
[w]hen the ANCSA amendments of 1987 [P.L. 100-241] were being legislated, the parties
involved agreed to include an amendment that would make it clear that Alaska Native
16

P.L. 93-638, §4(e), 88 Stat. 2204 (codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. §450b(e)) (January 4, 1975). Inclusion as
Indian tribes made ANCs eligible for contracts and grants to operate Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service programs under this act.
17
P.L. 95-507, §231, 92 Stat. 1772 (October 24, 1978); 15 U.S.C. §636(a).
18
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 99-272, §18015, 100 Stat. 370-71 (April 7, 1986); 15 U.S.C.
§637(a).
19
See, e.g., U.S. Congress, Senate Small Business Committee, S. 1022, A Bill to Make Small Businesses Owned by
American Indian Tribes Eligible for the SBA 8(a) Program: Hearings, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., at 28 (1983) (discussing the
Section 7(a) loan program); U.S. Congress, Senate Small Business Committee, Amending Section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act: Report to Accompany S. 1022, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., at 4-5 (1983) (discussing the 8(a) Program).
20
P.L. 100-241, §15, 101 Stat. 1812 (February 3, 1988) (amending Section 29 of ANCSA, codified at 43 U.S.C.
§1626(e)(1)).

Congressional Research Service

4

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

corporations were eligible for SBA minority programs. At that time, congressional staff
relied on the fact that “disadvantaged business enterprises” (called DBE’s), were a subset of
“minority business enterprises” (called MBE’s), and would thus be covered by the explicit
inclusion of Native corporations and specified affiliates as MBE’s.... Since then, we have
found that SBA is distinguishing disadvantaged business enterprises from minority business
enterprises, saying that a statutory definition as an MBE does not qualify Native corporations
as DBE’s for purposes of SBA programs.21

In 1992, Congress further amended ANCSA to clarify that Native Corporations were to be
considered “economically disadvantaged” for all purposes of federal law.22 Since 1988, according
to Government Accountability Office (GAO) figures, ANCs have consistently increased their
involvement in the 8(a) Program, as measured by the number of ANCs owning subsidiaries that
participate in the 8(a) Program.23

ANCs’ Economic Performance
ANCs were to be ANCSA’s vehicles—the “engines,” as it were—for the economic development
of Alaska Natives. However, the variation among regions and villages in acreage and population
meant that ANCs differed widely in their shares of the $962.5 million settlement fund and the 40
million acres to be conveyed. The 12 land-based regional corporations, which together cover the
entire state of Alaska, also varied not only in the size of their regions but in their regions’
economic resources and activities. Likewise, the village, group, and urban corporations, which
are scattered unevenly across the 12 regions, varied in their degree of isolation and the economic
activity of their surroundings. Hence, ANCs differed widely in their initial ANCSA funding, the
land-based resources they received, and their opportunities for economic development.
Since 1971, the ANCs have also differed widely in their business success, growth, income, and
losses, but an overall pattern of loss, recovery, and gradual expansion has been suggested by
several observers.
21
U.S. Congress, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, &
Forests, Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1991: Hearing on S. 1625, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., at 25 (1992)
(prepared statement of Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of Natives).
22
P.L. 102-415, §10, 106 Stat. 2115 (October 14, 1992); 43 U.S.C. §1626(e)(1). The House committee report on the
bill stated that it was amending Section 29 of ANCSA
to clarify that Alaska Native corporations are minority and economically disadvantaged business
enterprises for the purposes of implementing the SBA programs. Section 15(e) of the 1987
Amendments to ANCSA (P.L. 100-241) provided that Alaska Native corporations shall be defined
as minority business enterprises for as long as a majority of both the total equity and total voting
power of the corporation is held by holders of Settlement Common Stock and by Natives and
descendants of Natives. This section would further clarify that Alaska Native corporations and their
subsidiary companies are minority and economically disadvantaged business enterprises for the
purposes of qualifying for participation in Federal contracting and subcontracting programs, the
largest of which include the SBA 8(a) program and the Department of Defense Small and
Disadvantaged Business Program.... While this section eliminates the need for Alaska Native
Corporations or their subsidiaries to prove their ‘economic’ disadvantage the corporations would
still be required to meet size requirements as small businesses.
U.S. Congress, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Settlement of Certain Claims Under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act: Report to Accompany H.R. 3157, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 19 (1992).
23
Government Accountability Office, Contract Management: Increased Use of Alaska Native Corporations’ Special
8(a) Provisions Calls for Tailored Oversight, GAO-06-399, at 26 (April 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-06-399.

Congressional Research Service

5

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Loss
In the 1970s, ANCs organized themselves, made their land selections, and received their ANCSA
24
payments. The last major ANCSA payments to regional ANCs were made in 1980. In the 1970s
and 1980s, the ANCs invested in a wide variety of business operations, such as hotels, seafood
processing, shipping, oilfield services, and construction, as well as in natural resources. Their
businesses and investments were chiefly in Alaska. However, as a group, regional ANCs lost
substantial amounts of money in the period of 1971-1985, especially in non-resource business
operations. “The [regional] corporations altogether lost money on business operations every year
25
except 1974 and 1985,” according to economist Steve Colt. The same analyst later stated,
the consolidated financial performance of the Alaska Native corporations over their first two
decades was surprisingly poor. The twelve regional corporations lost about $380 million—
more than three quarters of their original cash endowment—in business operations between
1973 and 1993.26

At the same time, the ANCs struggled with the significant financial costs of litigation to
27
determine how ANCSA was to be applied and interpreted. There was “heavy litigation” over
land selections, Native village and group eligibility, individual Natives’ enrollment, ANC
elections and corporate governance, revenue-sharing among regional ANCs and with village
28
29
ANCs, and other issues.
30

During this period, ANCs reportedly had little or no involvement in the SBA’s 8(a) Program.

Recovery
What allowed the ANCs to recover, apparently, was their brief, unique opportunity to sell net
31
operating losses (NOLs) to other U.S. companies between 1986 and 1988. The ANCs’ sale of

24

Steve Colt, Financial Performance of Native Regional Corporations, 28 Alaska Rev. of Soc. & Econ. Conditions 9-10
(1991).
25
Id. at 3.
26
Steve Colt, Alaska Natives and the “New Harpoon”: Economic Performance of the ANCSA Regional Corporations,
at 3 (February 2, 2001), available at http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/colt_newharpoon2.pdf.
27
James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act at 35: Delivering on the Promise, Proceedings of the
53rd Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, at 4 (2007), available at
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/8(a)/ebook%20layout/C/C.1/ANCSA%20at%2035%20Delivering%20on%20the%20Promise.pdf.
28
Section 7(i) of ANCSA, codified at 43 U.S.C. §1606(i), provides for the distribution of 70% of a land-based regional
ANC’s net revenues from its timber and subsurface resources among the other land-based regional ANCs, with some
limitations. Section 7(j), codified at 43 U.S.C. §1606(j), provides for the further distribution of some of the timber and
subsurface income from regional ANCs to village ANCs and certain shareholders.
29
See Linxwiler, supra note 27.
30
According to an Alaska Business article, a subsidiary of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, called Piqunik
Management Corporation, was the first ANC subsidiary to be 8(a) certified, and it won its first contract in the late
1980s. See Julie Stricker, 8(a) Program Benefits Native Corporations, Alaska Bus. Monthly, June 2003, at 63.
31
Internal Revenue Code §172. NOLs may be deducted from gross income in certain past or future years, thereby
reducing tax liability in those years. During the early 1980s, any U.S. corporation with NOLs could sell its NOLs to
another corporation. See Colt, supra note 26, at 13.

Congressional Research Service

6

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

NOLs provided an estimated $410 million for regional ANCs and $500 million for village
32
ANCs.
Congress created the ANCs’ window of opportunity for NOL sales in 1986 when it added a
provision to the Internal Revenue Code that disallowed sales of NOLs by any corporation except
33
ANCs. Two years later Congress repealed the ANC exception.34
“For the regional corporations as a group, NOL sales proceeds provided a cash infusion equal (in
35
real dollars) to two thirds of the original ANCSA payments.” ANC income from NOL sales
“essentially recapitalized many of the struggling regional corporations, and put them in position
to benefit from the economic boom that began in the early 1990s.”36

Expansion
Given the opportunity to start over, ANCs apparently selected investments more wisely and
emphasized diversification, especially in businesses outside Alaska, although they also continued
37
“to do what they do well.” ANCs became active and made profitable investments in tourism
(including hotels), oilfield services, communications, catering, real estate, construction, and other
businesses, as well as in natural resources (timber and mining). In addition, by about 1992,
38
litigation costs were diminishing.
Some ANCs also became active in federal contracting, especially through the SBA’s 8(a)
39
Program. As noted above, the first ANC 8(a) contract was awarded in the late 1980s. However,
the 8(a) certification process was considered by many ANCs “arduous” until the 1992 amendment
to ANCSA, discussed above, that deemed ANCs economically disadvantaged for purposes of the
40
SBA’s 8(a) Program and other federal programs.
41

By 1992, an Alaska Business article had mentioned two regional ANCs as having 8(a) contracts.
By 1997, two regional ANCs, Aleut Corporation and Chugach Alaska Corporation, got the bulk
32

Julie Stricker, The Maturing of the 13 Regional Corporations, Alaska Bus. Monthly, March 2001, at 49 (citing Steve
Colt).
33
P.L. 99-514, §1804(e)(4), 100 Stat. 2801 (October 22, 1986); 26 U.S.C. §1504 note. Linxwiler explains:
while it was seeking reorganization pursuant to the bankruptcy laws, [regional ANC] Bering Straits Native
Corporation (BSNC), along with its advisors, initiated an effort to engage in the sharing of the tax benefits of its
NOLs through transactions with profitable companies with large tax liabilities—in essence, the ANCSA
corporation “sold” its losses to the profitable company, which used them as deductions to decrease its tax liability.
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) was instrumental in obtaining the enactment of a series of statutes that clarified the
authority of all Native corporations to enter into such transactions and they eventually became widespread among
ANCSA corporations until the authority for them was repealed in 1988.
Linxwiler, supra note 27, at 23.
34
P.L. 100-647, §5021, 102 Stat. 3666 (November 10, 1988); 26 U.S.C. §1504 note.
35
Colt, supra note 24, at 13.
36
Stricker, supra note 32, at 49-50.
37
Jennifer Forker, 25 Years After ANCSA, Alaska Bus. Monthly, November 1996, at 58 and following.
38
Linxwiler, supra note 27, at 4.
39
Stricker, supra note 30, at 63.
40
Id. at 63-64.
41
Clifford Gerhart, ANCSA Corporations, Alaska Bus. Monthly, November 1992, at 25-31.

Congressional Research Service

7

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

of their revenues and profits from 8(a) contracts.42 A chart in a 2006 GAO report on contracting
with ANCs shows a gradual but consistent increase in the number of ANCs (of all types) with
8(a) subsidiaries and the total number of such subsidiaries in the 8(a) Program, from very low
43
numbers in 1988 to a total of 49 ANCs and 154 subsidiaries in December 2005. According to
GAO, as of 2005, 12 of the 13 regional ANCs had 8(a) subsidiaries, as did 33 village ANCs and 4
urban ANCs (out of a total of 182 village, urban, and group ANCs).44

Legal Authorities Governing Contracting with
ANCs
Various authorities presently govern contracting between federal agencies and ANCs or ANCowned firms. These include (1) the general contracting authorities, (2) the general small business
authorities, (3) Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, (4) authorities pertaining to Native
Americans, and (5) various appropriations riders. These authorities address the award of
contracts, as well as related issues.

General Contracting Authorities
The Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 and the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended, give defense and civilian agencies, respectively, broad
authority to contract for goods and services.45 So long as they comply with statutory and
regulatory requirements governing solicitation of bids or offers, competition in contracting, and
similar matters, agencies may generally make awards to any entity that happens to be the lowest
qualified responsible bidder or offeror.46 This includes ANCs and their subsidiaries.
Moreover, agencies may make sole-source awards to ANCs or ANC-owned firms under the
general contracting authorities in the same circumstances in which they can make sole-source
awards to other entities. Such circumstances exist when
1. only one source can supply the goods or services,
2. there are unusual and compelling circumstances,
3. the agency seeks to maintain the industrial base,
4. international agreements require the agency to award the contract to a particular
entity,

42

Vivian Hamilton, Building on Experience, Alaska Bus. Monthly, September 1997, at 28 and following.
Contract Management, supra note 23, at 26, Fig. 6.
44
Id. at 9.
45
Armed Services Procurement Act, P.L. 80-413, 62 Stat. 21 (February 19, 1948) (codified at 10 U.S.C. §2302 et seq.);
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, P.L. 81-152, 63 Stat. 377 (June 30, 1949) (codified at 40 U.S.C.
§471 et seq. and 41 U.S.C. §3301 et seq.).
46
There are some exceptions to this general rule, such as the prohibition upon contracting with government employees
or entities owned or substantially owned and controlled by government employees. See 48 C.F.R. §§3.601-3.602. The
exceptions are few and narrow, however.
43

Congressional Research Service

8

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

5. a statute authorizes non-competitive awards or the agency is acquiring brandname commercial items for resale,
6. considerations of national security keep the agency from advertising its
requirements, or
7. a particular award is necessary in the public interest.47
Contracting officers must generally justify such sole-source awards in writing48 and obtain
approval of these justifications from their superiors.49 They must also generally issue a notice of
their intent to make a sole-source award prior to awarding the contract.50
The general contracting authorities may, in fact, be necessary to make awards to ANCs
themselves, as opposed to their subsidiaries or ANC-owned firms, given that some ANCs may not
qualify as “small” under the size standards applicable to contracts awarded under the authority of
the Small Business Act.51 The general contracting authorities also do not require that entities be
for-profit to receive an award, unlike the small business authorities.52 Not all ANCs are forprofit,53 and small non-profit ANCs could receive awards under the general contracting
authorities when they could not receive awards under the small business authorities.

General Small Business Authorities
Contracts could also be awarded to small ANCs or ANC-owned firms under the general small
business authorities. Section 15 of the Small Business Act of 1958, in conjunction with Sections
2711 and 2723 of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, provides agencies with special
authorities for contracting with small businesses.54 Under these authorities, agencies may “set
47

10 U.S.C. §2304(c)(1)-(7) (defense agencies) & 41 U.S.C. §3304(a)(1)-(7) (civilian agencies).
10 U.S.C. §2304(f) (defense agencies) & 41 U.S.C. §3304(e) (civilian agencies). The justification must include (1) a
description of agency needs; (2) the statutory exception upon which the agency relied and a demonstration of the
reasons for using the exception that is based upon the proposed contractor’s qualifications or the nature of the
procurement; (3) a determination that the anticipated cost will be fair and reasonable; (4) a description of any market
survey conducted, or a statement of the reasons for not conducting a market survey; (5) a listing of any sources that
expressed, in writing, interest in the procurement; and (6) a statement of any actions that the agency may take to
remove or overcome barriers to competition before subsequent procurements.
49
10 U.S.C. §2304(f)(1)(B) (defense agencies) & 41 U.S.C. §3304(e)(1)(B) (civilian agencies). The identity of the
approving official is determined by the anticipated value of the contract.
50
41 U.S.C. §1708.
51
15 U.S.C. §632(a)(1)-(2)(A) (statutory definition of “small” for purposes of the Small Business Act); 13 C.F.R.
§§121.101-121.108 (defining size in terms of the number of employees or gross income); Participation in the 8(a)
Program, supra note 1, at 12 (characterizing ANCs as “large”).
52
See 13 C.F.R. §121.105(a)(1) (“Except for small agricultural cooperatives, a business concern eligible for assistance
from SBA as a small business is a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United
States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S.
economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.”).
53
See, e.g., Contract Management, supra note 23, at 1 (noting that Alaskan village, urban, and group corporations may
be either for-profit or nonprofit). Regional corporations, in contrast, must be for-profit. Id.
54
Small Business Act of 1958, P.L. 85-536, §15, 72 Stat. 395 (July 18, 1958) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §644(a)) (“To
effectuate the purposes of this Act, small-business concerns within the meaning of this Act shall receive any award or
contract or any part thereof, and be awarded any contract for the sale of Government property, as to which it is
determined by the [Small Business] Administration and the contracting procurement or disposal agency (1) to be in the
interest of maintaining or mobilizing the Nation’s full productive capacity, (2) to be in the interest of war or national
defense programs, (3) to be in the interest of assuring that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be
(continued...)
48

Congressional Research Service

9

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

aside” contracts for small businesses—by conducting competitions in which only they can
compete—when certain conditions are met.55 These set-asides can be total or partial,
encompassing the entire acquisition or a severable segment of it.56 Agencies may also make solesource awards to small businesses when one of the seven circumstances authorizing
noncompetitive awards under the general contracting authorities exist, although such awards are
made under the general contracting authorities and not the general small business authorities.57
They are thus subject to the notice, justification, and approval requirements discussed
previously.58
One of the alleged “special provisions” governing contracting with ANCs, discussed below,
arguably assists ANC-owned firms in qualifying as “small” for purposes of contracting under the
general small business authorities. While all affiliations between businesses, or relationships
allowing one party control or the power of control over another,59 count when the SBA makes
size determinations,60 certain affiliations with the parent ANC or its subsidiaries are generally
excluded when the SBA determines the size of an ANC-owned firm.61 Although the SBA is
authorized to consider these affiliations when not doing so results, or is likely to result, in an
ANC-owned firm obtaining a “substantial unfair competitive advantage within an industry
category,”62 the SBA and agencies exercising delegated authority on its behalf63 reportedly
seldom exercise this authority.64

(...continued)
made to small business concerns.”); Competition in Contracting Act, P.L. 98-369, §2711, 98 Stat. 1175-76 (August 18,
1984) (“In fulfilling the statutory requirements relating to small business concerns and socially and economically
disadvantaged small business concerns, an executive agency shall use competitive procedures but may restrict a
solicitation to allow only such business concerns to compete.”) (procurements of civilian agencies); CICA, §2723, 98
Stat. 1187-88 (same) (procurements of defense agencies).
55
Federal law requires that contracts whose anticipated value is between $3,000 and $150,000 be set aside for small
businesses unless the contracting officer is unable to obtain offers from two or more small businesses that are
competitive with market prices and in terms of the quality and delivery of goods or services. 15 U.S.C. §644(j)(1); 48
C.F.R. §19.502-2(a). Contracts whose anticipated value exceeds $150,000 are similarly required to be set aside for
small businesses if the contracting officer reasonably expects that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible
small businesses offering the products of different small businesses, and the award will be made at a fair market price.
48 C.F.R. §19.502-2(b).
56
When a total set-aside is not appropriate, an acquisition can generally be partially set aside for small businesses if (1)
the requirement is severable into two or more economic production runs or reasonable lots, (2) one or more small
businesses are expected to have the technical competence and productive capacity to satisfy the set-aside portion of the
requirement at a fair market price, and (3) the acquisition is not subject to simplified acquisition procedures. 48 C.F.R.
§19.502-3(a)(1)-(4). Partial set-asides cannot be made when procuring construction work, however. 48 C.F.R. §19.5023(a).
57
See supra note 47 and accompanying text.
58
See supra notes 48 to 50 and accompanying text.
59
13 C.F.R. §121.103(a)(1). Control or the power of control need only exist; it need not be exercised.
60
13 C.F.R. §121.103(a)(6) (“In determining the concern’s size, SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure
of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the
affiliates are organized for profit.”).
61
15 U.S.C. §636(j)(10)(J)(ii)(II); 13 C.F.R. §121.103(b)(2)(i) (“Business concerns owned and controlled by Indian
Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.), Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), Community Development Corporations (CDCs) authorized by
42 U.S.C. 9805, or wholly-owned entities of Indian Tribes, ANCs, NHOs, or CDCs are not considered affiliates of such
entities.”).
62
13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(2)(iii). (“In determining the size of a small business concern owned by a socially and
economically disadvantaged Indian tribe (or a wholly owned business entity of such tribe) for either 8(a) BD program
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

10

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

In contrast, ANC-owned firms are not exempt from the requirement that they be “businesses” for
purposes of the Small Business Act, which means that they must be for-profit to be awarded
contracts under the general small business authorities.65 They also must self-certify that they are
“small,” as measured by the size standards for the goods or services to be procured, when
submitting bids or offers for contracts to be awarded under the general small business
authorities.66 However, while there are potentially severe penalties for misrepresentation of size67
and other entities may generally protest firms’ size,68 self-certifications are not necessarily closely
scrutinized. SBA regulations provide that
A contracting officer may accept a concern’s self-certification as true for the particular
procurement involved in the absence of a written protest by other offerors or other credible
information which causes the contracting officer or SBA to question the size of the
concern.69

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act
Agencies can also contract with ANC-owned firms, although not necessarily ANCs themselves,70
under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act of 1958, as amended. Section 8(a)
generally authorizes set-asides and sole-source awards to “socially and economically
disadvantaged small business concerns,” which include firms at least 51% owned and
unconditionally controlled by ANCs, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) or
Community Development Corporations (CDCs).71 Contracts whose value is at or below the so(...continued)
entry or contract award, the firm’s size shall be determined independently without regard to its affiliation with the tribe,
any entity of the tribal government, or any other business enterprise owned by the tribe, unless the Administrator
determines that one or more such tribally-owned business concerns have obtained, or are likely to obtain, a substantial
unfair competitive advantage within an industry category.”). ANCs are included within the definition of “Indian tribe”
used here. See Omnibus Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, P.L. 99-272, §18015, 100 Stat. 370 (1986)
(codified at 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(13)).
63
13 C.F.R. §124.501(a).
64
See, e.g., Contract Management, supra note 23, at 37 (reporting that some contracting officers claimed not to know
how to determine what constitutes a “substantial unfair competitive advantage” when making size determinations for
ANC-owned firms).
65
13 C.F.R. §124.109(a)(3).
66
See Small Business Administration, Guide to SBA’s Definitions of Small Business, “Use of Size Standards for
Government Procurement,” at 13-14, available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/
guide_to_size_standards.pdf.
67
See 13 C.F.R. §121.108 (including criminal penalties under 15 U.S.C. §645(d)).
68
13 C.F.R. §121.1001(a)(2) (authorizing protests of competitive awards by offerors whom the contracting officer has
not eliminated for reasons related to size; the contracting officer; and the SBA Government Contracting Area Director
with responsibility for the area in which the headquarters of the protested offeror is located). Sole-source awards are
treated differently. See 13 C.F.R. §1001(b)(2)(ii).
69
13 C.F.R. §121.405(b).
70
The statutes and regulations consistently refer to agencies’ contracting with ANC-owned firms, and individual ANCs
could have difficulty qualifying as small under the size standards. Additionally, non-profit ANCs would not qualify as
businesses for purposes of the Small Business Act. See 13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) (speaking of participation in the 8(a)
Program by “ANC-owned concerns”); 13 C.F.R. §§121.101-121.108 (size standards used in determining whether a
firm is small); 13 C.F.R. §121.105(a)(1) (defining “businesses” as for-profit entities).
71
15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(A)-(B). While “socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns” were
originally defined as those owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, Congress later
included firms that are at least 51% owned and unconditionally controlled by ANCs, Indian tribes, NHOs, or CDCs.
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

11

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

called “competitive threshold” ($4 million, $6.5 million for manufacturing contracts) may
generally be awarded on a sole-source basis, without the competition among 8(a) firms that
would result if the contract were set aside.72 Contracts whose value exceeds the competitive
threshold, in contrast, generally must be set-aside for competitions in which all 8(a) firms may
compete unless there is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a)
firms will submit offers at a fair market price.73 See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Competition Requirements for the 8(a) Program

Source: Congressional Research Service.

However, agencies also have special authority to make sole-source awards to ANC- or other
group-owned firms under Section 8(a) in circumstances when they could not make awards to
individually owned 8(a) firms (e.g., when the contract exceeds the “competitive threshold,” and
there is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit
offers at a fair market price).74 Because this authority does not derive from the Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA), such awards were not subject to the same requirements regarding
justifications, approvals, and notices as other sole-source awards prior to enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010.75 The NDAA for FY2010 changed this
(...continued)
See P.L. 95-507, §202, 92 Stat. 1757 (October 24, 1978) (codified at 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)-(B)) (creating statutory
authority for the 8(a) Program for minority-owned businesses); Community Development Act of 1981, P.L. 97-35, Ch.
8, Subch. A, 95 Stat. 489 (August 13, 1981) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§9801 et seq.) (making CDC-owned firms eligible
for the 8(a) Program); Omnibus Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, P.L. 99-272, §18015, 100 Stat. 370
(April 7, 1986) (making tribally and ANC-owned firms eligible for the 8(a) Program); Business Opportunity
Development Reform Act of 1988, P.L. 100-656, §207, 102 Stat. 3861 (November 15, 1988) (codified at 15 U.S.C.
§637(a)(4)) (making NHO firms eligible for the 8(a) Program).
72
15 U.S.C. §637(a)(16)(A). A noncompetitive award may be made under this authority so long as (1) the firm is
determined to be a responsible contractor for performance of the contract, (2) award of the contract would be consistent
with the firm’s business plan, and (3) award of the contract would not result in the firm exceeding the percentage of
revenue from 8(a) sources forecast in its annual business plan. 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(16)(A)(i)-(iii). For contracts whose
value is below the competitive threshold to be awarded competitively, the SBA’s Associate Administrator for 8(a)
Business Development must approve the agency’s request to do so. 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(D)(ii); 48 C.F.R. §19.8051(d).
73
15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(D)(i)(II); 48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(a)(1)-(2). The text of the Small Business Act, as codified at
Section 637(a) of Title 15, currently gives the “competitive threshold” as $3 million ($5 million for manufacturing
contracts). However, this amount has twice been adjusted for inflation pursuant to Section 807 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005. See P.L. 108-375, §807, 118 Stat. 2010-11 (October 28,
2004) (requiring that certain “acquisition” thresholds be periodically adjusted for inflation).
74
15 U.S.C. §637(a)(1)(D)(i)(I)-(II); 48 C.F.R. §19.805-1(b)(1)-(2) (sole-source awards to tribally or ANC-owned
firms); 48 C.F.R. §219.805-1(b)(2)(A)-(B) (sole-source awards to NHO-owned firms).
75
P.L. 111-84, §811(a)(1)-(3), 123 Stat. 2405-06 (October 28, 2009) (prohibiting agencies from awarding sole-source
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

12

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

by requiring justifications, approvals, and notices for sole-source contracts in excess of $20
million (base plus all options)76 awarded under the authority of Section 8(a) similar to those
required for sole-source contracts awarded under the general contracting authorities.77 However,
justifications, approvals, and notices are still not required for sole-source contracts valued at
between $4 million ($6.5 million for manufacturing contracts) and $20 million awarded under the
authority of Section 8(a).
While agency discretion in determining whether to procure particular goods or services under the
authority of Section 8 (a) is fairly broad,78 detailed statutory and regulatory requirements govern
firms’ eligibility for and participation in the 8(a) Program. The places where the statutory or
regulatory requirements pertaining to contracting with ANC-owned firms differ from the general
8(a) requirements have attracted the most scrutiny from those concerned about the alleged
“special procurement advantages” of ANC-owned firms.79 These places are briefly summarized in
Table 1,80 while a separate report explains the general 8(a) requirements in more detail.81

(...continued)
contracts in excess of $20 million in “covered procurements” unless “(1) the contracting officer for the contract
justifies the use of a sole-source contract in writing; (2) the justification is approved by the appropriate official
designated to approve contract awards for dollar amounts that are comparable to the amount of the sole-source contract;
and (3) the justification and related information are made public). “Covered procurements” include those described in
10 U.S.C. §2304(f)(2)(D)(ii) and 41 U.S.C. §3304(e)(4)(D), provisions which exempt sole-source contracts awarded
under the authority of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act from the justifications and approvals required for other
sole-source contracts.
76
Section 811 did not itself specify whether these justifications, approvals, and notices are required only when the base
value of the contract exceeds $20 million, or when the base value of the contract plus all options exceeds $20 million.
However, regulations promulgated by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council on March 16, 2011, clarified that
justifications, approvals, and notices are required when the base value of the contract plus all options exceeds $20
million. See Dep’t of Defense, Gen. Servs. Admin., Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., Federal Acquisition
Regulation; Justification and Approval of Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts: Interim Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 14559 (March 16,
2011). This regulation also clarified that agency heads may generally delegate the authority to approve contracting
officers’ justifications to other agency personnel and are not required to approve all justifications themselves. Id.
77
P.L. 111-84, at §811(b)(1)-(5). The NDAA for FY2010 requires that justifications for sole-source awards include: (1)
a description of the agency’s needs; (2) the specific statutory provision authorizing the agency to use other than
competitive procedures; (3) a determination that use of a sole-source contract is in the best interest of the agency; (4) a
determination that the anticipated cost of the contract will be fair and reasonable; and (5) any other matters that the
head of the contracting agency might require. The contents of such justifications thus differ slightly from those required
for other sole-source awards under CICA. Under CICA, justifications must include: (1) a description of the agency’s
needs; (2) the specific statutory provision authorizing the agency to use other than competitive procedures; (3) a
determination that the anticipated cost will be fair and reasonable; (4) a description of the market survey conducted or a
statement of the reasons for not conducting a market survey; (5) a listing of any sources that expressed an interest in the
procurement in writing; and (6) a statement of any actions the agency may take to remove or overcome barriers to
competition before future procurements of similar goods or services. See supra note 48.
78
See, e.g., AHNTECH, Inc., B-401092, Comp. Gen. December (April 22, 2009) (“The [Small Business] Act affords
the SBA and contracting agencies broad discretion in selecting procurements for the 8(a) program.”).
79
See, e.g., Northern Lights and Procurement Plights, supra note 4, at 178 (statement of Ann Sullivan, President,
Madison Services Group, Inc., on behalf of Women Impacting Public Policy) (suggesting that all 8(a) firms should be
subject to the same requirements). Firms owned by Indian tribes, NHOs, and CDCs enjoy many, but not all, of the
alleged “special procurement advantages” enjoyed by ANC-owned firms. See 13 C.F.R. §124.109(b)-(c) (tribally
owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.110 (NHO-owned firms); 13 C.F.R. §124.111 (CDC-owned firms). A notable exception
is that tribally and NHO-owned firms are not deemed to be economically disadvantaged in the same way that ANCowned firms are. Compare 13 C.F.R. §124.109(a)(2) (ANC-owned firms) with 13 C.F.R. §124.109(b)(2) (tribally
owned firms) and 13 C.F.R. §124.110(c) (NHO-owned firms).
80
There are also variations in the regulations regarding “good character” and “potential for success.” With 8(a) firms
generally, SBA checks that the firm and its owner(s) have not engaged in criminal conduct, have not violated SBA
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

13

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Table 1. “Special Rules” for Contracting with ANC-owned Firms Under Section 8(a)
of the Small Business Act
“Special Rule” for ANCOwned Firms

Authority for the
“Special Rule”

All affiliations, as defined under
SBA regulations, count when the
SBA makes size determinations.

Affiliations with the parent ANC or
its subsidiaries are excluded when
the SBA makes size determinations
unless the SBA determines that the
ANC-owned firm has obtained, or
is likely to obtain, a “substantial
unfair competitive advantage within
an industry category” if these
affiliations are excluded.

15 U.S.C.
§636(j)(10)(J)(ii); 13
C.F.R.
§124.109(c)(2)(iii)

Management by
nondisadvantaged
individuals (as a
component of
control)

Management and daily business
operations must be conducted by
one or more disadvantaged
individuals.

People who are not Alaska Natives
may manage ANC-owned firms if
the SBA determines that such
management is required to assist
the firm’s development, the firm
will retain control of all
management decisions, and a
written management plan shows
how Alaska Natives will develop
managerial skills sufficient to
manage the concern or similar
concerns in the future.

13 C.F.R.
§124.109(c)(4)(i)(B)

Social
disadvantage

Individuals are either rebuttably
presumed to be socially
disadvantaged or must prove
individual social disadvantage by a
preponderance of the evidence.

ANC-owned firms are deemed
“minority business enterprises” and
are irrebuttably presumed to be
socially and economically
disadvantaged small business
concerns provided they are at least
51% owned by an ANC and their
management and daily business
operations are controlled by one or
more Alaska Natives.

43 U.S.C. §1626(e);
P.L. 99-272, 101 Stat.
370-71 (Apr. 7,
1986) (codified at 15
U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)(B))

Issue

General 8(a) Rule

Exclusion of
certain
affiliations in
size
determinations

(...continued)
regulations, and are not debarred or suspended from government contracting. See 13 C.F.R. §124.108(a). With ANCowned firms, the SBA applies these requirements only to officers, directors, and shareholders owning more than a 20%
interest in the firm, not to all ANC shareholders. See 13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(7)(B)(ii). Similarly, with potential for
success, SBA generally considers the following five criteria when granting waivers: (1) the management experience of
the disadvantaged individual(s) upon whom eligibility is based; (2) the firm’s technical experience; (3) the firm’s
capital; (4) the firm’s performance record on prior federal or other contracts in its primary field; and (5) whether the
firm has or can timely obtain the personnel, facilities, equipment, and other resources necessary to perform contracts
under Section 8(a). See 13 C.F.R. §124.107. Waivers for ANC-owned firms, in contrast, can be granted based on: (1)
the technical and managerial experience and competency of the individuals who will manage and control the firm’s
daily operations, (2) the firm’s record of successful performance on contracts from governmental or nongovernmental
sources, and (3) adequate capital to sustain the firm’s operations and carry out its business plan. See 13 C.F.R.
§124.109(c)(6)(ii). However, commentators generally do not attribute the reportedly increasing number of contracts
with ANC-owned firms to these factors, and they are thus excluded from Table 1.
81
See CRS Report R40744, The “8(a) Program” for Small Businesses Owned and Controlled by the Socially and
Economically Disadvantaged: Legal Requirements and Issues, supra note 8.

Congressional Research Service

14

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Issue

General 8(a) Rule

“Special Rule” for ANCOwned Firms

Authority for the
“Special Rule”

Economic
disadvantage

Individuals must show economic
disadvantage upon entry to the
program and annually thereafter.

ANCs are deemed economically
disadvantaged provided that Alaska
Natives and descendants of Alaska
Natives own a majority of the total
equity of the ANC and the total
voting powers to elect directors of
the ANC through their holdings of
settlement common stock.

P.L. 100-241, §15,
101 Stat. 1812-13
(Feb. 3, 1988); P.L.
102-415, §10, 106
Stat. 2115 (Oct. 14,
1992) (codified at 43
U.S.C. §1626(e)); 13
C.F.R. 124.109(a)

Sole-source
awards above
the competitive
threshold

Agencies may make sole-source
awards in excess of $4 million
($6.5 million for manufacturing
contracts) only if the contracting
officer does not reasonably
expect that at least two
responsible firms will submit
offers and the award can be made
at a fair market price.

Agencies may make sole-source
awards to ANC-owned firms at any
time, even when the contracting
officer reasonably expects that at
least two responsible 8(a) firms will
submit offers and the award can be
made at a fair market price.

P.L. 100-656, §602(a),
102 Stat. 3887-88
(Nov. 15, 1988)
(codified at 15 U.S.C.
§637(a)(1)(D)(i)-(ii));
13 C.F.R. §124.506(a)

Inability to
receive
additional
source-source
awards after
obtaining a
certain amount
of 8(a) awards

8(a) firms generally may not
receive additional sole-source
awards once they have received a
combined total of competitive and
sole-source awards in excess of
(1) $100 million, in the case of
firms whose size is based on their
number of employees, or (2) the
lesser of (A) $100 million or (B)
five times the size standard for
the industry, in the case of firms
whose size is based on their
revenues.

ANCs can continue to receive
additional sole-source awards even
once they have reached $100
million or other applicable
threshold.

13 C.F.R.
§124.519(a)-(d)

Owners’ onetime eligibility
for the 8(a)
Program

Individuals may confer eligibility
for the 8(a) Program upon only
one firm; individuals, along with
their firms, may participate in the
8(a) Program for a maximum of
nine years.

ANCs may confer eligibility upon
multiple firms; while ANC-owned
firms must leave the 8(a) Program
after a maximum of nine years, the
ANC can continue to participate in
the program as a firm owner
perpetually.

P.L. 101-37, §4, 103
Stat. 70-71 (June 15,
1989) (codified at 15
U.S.C.
§636(j)(11)(B)-(C))

Ability to own
majority
interests in
multiple 8(a)
firms

Individuals who have been
determined to be disadvantaged
for purposes of one 8(a) firm,
their immediate family members,
and 8(a) firms themselves
generally may not own more than
20% of any other 8(a) firm.

ANCs are barred from owning
more than 51% of another 8(a) firm
obtaining the majority of its
revenues from the same primary
industry in which another ANCowned firm operates or has
operated within the past two years.
They may own majority interests in
multiple firms obtaining the
majority of their revenues in
different primary industries, or
obtaining less than 50% of their
revenues in the same secondary
industry.

P.L. 101-37, §4, 103
Stat. 70-71 (June 15,
1989) (codified at 15
U.S.C.
§636(j)(11)(B)-(C));
13 C.F.R.
§124.109(c)(3)

Source: Congressional Research Service.

Congressional Research Service

15

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

ANC-owned firms are, however, subject to other requirements governing eligibility for and
participation in the 8(a) Program, including requirements that they (1) be small under the SBA’s
size standards,82 (2) be businesses under the SBA’s definition,83 (3) be unconditionally owned and
substantially controlled by their owner (i.e., the ANC),84 (4) possess good character,85 (5)
demonstrate potential for success,86 and (6) obtain increasing percentages of their income from
non-8(a) sources in their final five years of participation in the 8(a) Program.87 ANC-owned firms
must also apply to participate in the 8(a) Program like other firms. This application form is
somewhat different from that used by individually owned firms, but requires similarly extensive
supporting documentation concerning company personnel, corporate organization, financial
status, and company operations.88 ANC-owned firms must also submit an “8(a) Annual Update”
like other 8(a) firms.89 This update requires additional documentation much like that submitted
with applications to the 8(a) Program. Careful review of this documentation could potentially
disclose some of the alleged problems with ANC-owned 8(a) firms, such as joint ventures to
which the ANC-owned firm contributes nothing beyond its eligibility for 8(a) contracts. However,
a November 2008 GAO report questioned whether SBA’s resources are adequate for thorough
reviews of 8(a) firms,90 and a January 2012 GAO report opined that SBA “cannot implement” its
new rules (discussed below) intended to strengthen 8(a) firms’ role in any joint ventures using
currently available information.91
82

13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(3)(i) (“For corporate entities, a Tribe must unconditionally own at least 51 percent of the
voting stock and at least 51 percent of the aggregate of all classes of stock. For non-corporate entities, a Tribe must
unconditionally own at least a 51 percent interest.”). ANC-owned firms are subject to the same requirements as tribally
owned firms here.
83
13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) & (b) (requiring ANC-owned firms to comply with the general eligibility requirements when
they are not contrary to or inconsistent with the special requirements for these entities); 13 C.F.R. §121.105(a)(1)
(“Except for small agricultural cooperatives, a business concern eligible for assistance from SBA as a small business is
a business entity organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and which operates
primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of
taxes or use of American products, materials or labor.”).
84
13 C.F.R. §124.109(a) & (b).
85
13 C.F.R. §124.109(b)(7)(ii).
86
13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(6).
87
13 C.F.R. §124.509(b)(2). The final five years of a firm’s participation in the 8(a) Program are known as the
“transitional stage,” and firms in the transitional stage must generally achieve annual targets for the amount of income
they receive from non-8(a) sources. 15 U.S.C. §636(j)(10)(I)(i)-(iii); 13 C.F.R. §124.509(b)(1). These targets increase
over time, with firms required to attain 15% of their revenue from non-8(a) sources in the fifth year, 25% in the sixth
year, 35% in the seventh year, 45% in the eighth year, and 55% in the ninth year. 13 C.F.R. §124.509(b)(2). Firms that
do not obtain the required percentage of revenue from non-8(a) sources are generally ineligible for sole-source 8(a)
contracts “unless and until” they remedy the situation. 13 C.F.R. §124.509(d)(1).
88
Compare Small Business Administration, 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program Application: Alaska Native
Corporation-Owned Concern, available at http://www.sba.gov/content/8a-business-development-bd-programapplication-alaskan-native-corporation-owned-concern with Small Business Administration, 8(a) Business
Development Program Application, available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/SBA%20Form%201010_0.pdf.
89
Small Business Administration, 8(a) Annual Update, available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
forms_1450.pdf.
90
Government Accountability Office, Small Business Administration: Agency Should Assess Resources Devoted to
Contracting and Improve Several Processes in the 8(a) Program, GAO-09-16, at 1 (November 2008), available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0916.pdf (noting a lack of routine surveillance reviews).
91
Federal Contracting: Monitoring and Oversight of Tribal 8(a) Firms Need Attention, supra note 3, at 39. This report
also suggested that SBA has failed to address certain previously identified issues, such as determining when an ANCowned firm would have an “unfair advantage” over other 8(a) firms due to its affiliation with an ANC or other
subsidiaries of an ANC. Id. at 41.

Congressional Research Service

16

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Authorities in Native American Laws
Several authorities governing contracting with ANCs and their subsidiaries are located in statutes
and U.S. Code sections pertaining to Native Americans, rather than those pertaining to
contracting or small business. These provisions create incentives for agencies to contract with
ANCs or their subsidiaries by, for example, allowing contracts with “large” ANCs to count
toward federal prime contractors’ goals for subcontracting with small businesses.

5% “Subcontracting Bonus”
Federal prime contractors are eligible for so-called “bonuses” equal to “5 percent of the amount
paid, or to be paid, to a subcontractor” when they subcontract with ANCs or ANC-owned firms,
among others.92 Congress authorized such bonuses in 1988, in part, because of concerns that
federal prime contractors had less incentive to use Indian-owned subcontractors than other
minority-owned subcontractors because of the geographical “remoteness of [Indian]
reservation[s].”93 Congress also appropriated funds for the Department of Defense (DOD), in
particular, to pay subcontracting bonuses. The amount appropriated remained constant at $8
million per year between FY1989 and FY2006, and was increased to $15 million per year during
the 110th Congress.94 Other agencies have not received similar appropriations to pay
subcontracting bonuses, but have the same statutory authority to pay them that DOD has.
To be eligible for a bonus, the prime contractor must
use its best efforts to give Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises …
the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the subcontracts it awards to the
fullest extent consistent with efficient performance of its contract.95
92
25 U.S.C. §1544 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a contractor of a Federal agency under any Act of
Congress may be allowed an additional amount of compensation equal to 5 percent of the amount paid, or to be paid, to
a subcontractor or supplier, in carrying out the contract if such subcontractor or supplier is an Indian organization or
Indian-owned economic enterprise as defined in this chapter.”).
93
P.L. 100-442, §7, 102 Stat. 1765 (September 22, 1988) (codified at 25 U.S.C. §1544); H.Rept. 100-838, at 6 (1988),
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2344, 2347 (“Currently, contracting agencies are authorized to encourage contractors
to use minority subcontractors, however, there is no incentive for the contractors to use Indian contractors located on
Indian reservations due to the remoteness of such reservation.”). The statute and its implementing regulations (in
Subpart 26.1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation) only mention Indians, Indian organizations, Indian-owned
economic enterprises, and Indian tribes, which include ANCs. However, Congress included Native Hawaiians among
those entities that prime contractors may receive bonuses for subcontracting with in 2002. See P.L. 107-248, §8021,
116 Stat. 1541 (October 23, 2002) (including “small business[es] owned and controlled by an individual defined under
25 U.S.C. 4221(9)” among those whom contractors receive bonuses for contracting with); 25 U.S.C. §4221(9)
(defining “Native Hawaiians”); 48 C.F.R. Subpart 226.1 and §252.226-7001.
94
See P.L. 101-165, §9103, 103 Stat. 1151-52 (November 21, 1989); P.L. 101-511, §8077, 104 Stat. 1892-93
(November 5, 1990); P.L. 102-172, §8112A, 105 Stat. 1202 (November 26, 1991); P.L. 102-396, §9091A, 106 Stat.
1922 (October 6, 1992); P.L. 103-139, §8059A, 107 Stat. 1453 (November 11, 1993); P.L. 103-335, §8025A, 108 Stat.
2623 (September 30, 1994); P.L. 104-61, §8024, 109 Stat. 657 (December 1, 1995); P.L. 104-208, §8024, 110 Stat.
3009-93 (September 30, 1996); P.L. 105-56, §8024, 111 Stat. 1225 (October 8, 1997); P.L. 106-79, §8024, 113 Stat.
1236 (October 25, 1999); P.L. 106-259, §8022, 114 Stat. 679 (August 9, 2000); P.L. 107-117, §8022, 115 Stat. 2252
(January 10, 2002); P.L. 107-248, §8021; P.L. 108-87, §8021; P.L. 108-287, §8021; P.L. 109-148, §8020; P.L. 109289, §8018; P.L. 110-116, §8021; P.L. 110-329, §8021; P.L. 111-118, §8021, 123 Stat. 3432. The amount appropriated
remained at $15 million per year during the first session of the 112th Congress. See P.L. 112-10, §8020, 125 Stat. 61
(April 15, 2011); P.L. 112-74, §8019, 125 Stat. 808-89 (December 31, 2011).
95
48 C.F.R. §52.226-1(b).

Congressional Research Service

17

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

Contracting officers and contractors may generally rely on subcontractors’ representations
regarding their eligibility as Indian organizations or Indian-owned economic enterprises unless an
interested party challenges their eligibility, or the contracting officer has independent reason to
question it.96 Any challenges are referred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for eligibility
determinations.97

Credit Toward Prime Contractors’ Subcontracting Goals
Subcontracts awarded by federal prime contractors to ANCs or their subsidiaries count toward
contractors’ goals for subcontracting with small businesses and “small disadvantaged businesses”
even if the ANC or ANC subsidiary is large or not certified as “disadvantaged”:
Subcontracts awarded to an ANC or an Indian tribe shall be counted towards the
subcontracting goals for small business and small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns
regardless of the size or Small Business Administration certification status of the ANC or
Indian tribe.98

Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act, as amended, requires federal agencies to negotiate
subcontracting plans with the apparently successful bidder or offeror on eligible prime contracts
prior to awarding the contract.99 These subcontracting plans establish goals for the value of
subcontracts that prime contractors should award to small businesses and small disadvantaged
businesses, among others.100 A contractor’s failure to comply with its subcontracting plan
constitutes a material breach of the contract, potentially allowing the agency to terminate the
contractor for default.101 The contractor could also potentially be required to pay liquidated
damages.102
Other firms must qualify as “small” under the SBA regulations for subcontracts with them to
count toward contractors’ goals for subcontracting with small businesses or small disadvantaged
businesses (SDBs).103 Moreover, until October 3, 2008, other firms had to be certified SDBs for
subcontracts with them to count toward contractors’ goals.104 All 8(a) firms were deemed to be
96

48 C.F.R. §52.226-1(b)(1).
Id.
98
48 C.F.R. §19.703(c)(1)(i). The statutory authority for this regulation is presently unclear. Section 702 of the
Emergency Supplemental Act of 2002 initially amended 43 U.S.C. §1626(e)(4)(B) to allow subcontracts with large or
uncertified ANCs or ANC subsidiaries to count toward subcontracting goals under Section 8(d) of the Small Business
Act. See P.L. 107-117, §702, 115 Stat. 2312 (January 10, 2002). However, a later statute amended 43 U.S.C.
§1626(e)(4)(B) again, so that it now addresses government contracting and subcontracting goals under Section 15 of
the Small Business Act, not subcontracting goals under 8(d). See Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further
Recovery from and Responses to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, P.L. 107-206, §3003, 116 Stat. 924 (August 2,
2002). The regulations have apparently been promulgated as if the Emergency Supplemental Act still governed. See
Dep’t of Defense, General Servs. Admin., & National Aeronautics & Space Admin., FAR Case 2004-017, Small
Business Credit for Alaska Native Corporations and Indian Tribes, 72 Fed. Reg. 46345 (August 17, 2007).
99
15 U.S.C. §637(d)(4) & (5). Eligible contracts are generally those exceeding $650,000 ($1.5 million for contracts to
construct public facilities) and offering subcontracting possibilities. Id.
100
15 U.S.C. §637(d)(6).
101
15 U.S.C. §637(d)(8).
102
48 C.F.R. §19.705-7.
103
15 U.S.C. §637(d)(1) (describing subcontracting with “small businesses”).
104
See Small Business Administration, Small Disadvantaged Business Program, 73 Fed. Reg. 57490 (October 3, 2008)
(announcing that SBA would no longer certify SDBs);13 C.F.R. §124.1001(c) (2009) (“A firm may represent that it
(continued...)
97

Congressional Research Service

18

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

SDBs, but other firms at least 51% unconditionally owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals or groups could also obtain certification.105

Small Disadvantaged Businesses for Purposes of Transportation Contracts
The same statute that allows subcontracts with large or uncertified ANCs or ANC affiliates to
count for purposes of contractors’ subcontracting goals for small businesses also enables large
ANCs or ANC affiliates to qualify as “small disadvantaged businesses” for certain contracts
funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT), provided that they obtain the necessary
certifications.106 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) originally required
that
not less than 10 percent of the amounts made available for the program under titles I, III, and
V of this Act shall be expended with small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.107

However, later regulations, promulgated in response to court cases challenging the
constitutionality of “quotas” for minority firms,108 construe “10 percent” as an “aspirational goal
at the national level,” which “does not authorize or require recipients to set overall or contract
goals at the 10 percent level, or any other particular level, or to take any special administrative
steps if their goals are above or below 10 percent.”109
Allowing large ANCs and their affiliates to qualify as small disadvantaged businesses for
purposes of DOT contracting goals is potentially significant for two reasons. First, “small
business” arguably has a narrower meaning under TEA-21 than it does under the Small Business
Act, which could render some non-ANC-owned firms that might otherwise qualify as “small”
ineligible for the DOT program.110 Second, “small disadvantaged businesses” under TEA-21
include women-owned firms,111 which could place the collective interests of women-owned small
businesses more directly at odds with those of ANC-owned firms than is the case when individual
(...continued)
qualifies as an SDB for any Federal subcontracting program if it believes in good faith that it is owned and controlled
by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”).
105
13 C.F.R. §124.1002 (2008).
106
P.L. 107-117, §702; P.L. 107-206, §3003 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §1626(e)(4)(C) (“Any entity that satisfies
subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section that has been certified under section 637 of title 15 is a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise for the purposes of P.L. 105-178.”).
107
P.L. 105-178, §1101(b), 112 Stat. 113 (June 9, 1998). TEA-21 lapsed on May 31, 2005, but was extended through
FY2009 by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
See SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59, §1101(b), 119 Stat. 1144 (August 10, 2005). More recently, Congress has enacted the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which includes similar language. See P.L. 112-141,
§1101, 126 Stat. 415 (July 6, 2012).
108
See CRS Report RL33284, Minority Contracting and Affirmative Action for Disadvantaged Small Businesses: Legal
Issues, by (name redacted).
109
49 C.F.R. §26.41(b)-(c).
110
P.L. 105-178, §1101(b)(2)(A) (“The term ‘small business concern’ has the meaning such term has under section 3 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632); except that such term shall not include any concern or group of concerns
controlled by the same socially and economically disadvantaged individual or individuals which has average annual
gross receipts over the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of $16,600,000, as adjusted by the Secretary for inflation.”).
111
P.L. 105-178, §1101(b)(2)(B).

Congressional Research Service

19

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

women-owned firms participate in the 8(a) Program or are designated as small disadvantaged
businesses for SBA programs. Women are not among the groups presumed to be socially
disadvantaged for purposes of SBA programs, and small businesses owned and controlled by
women are eligible for such programs only when individual women owners prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that they are socially disadvantaged.

Appropriations Riders Allowing Direct Conversion of DOD
Functions
The Department of Defense (DOD) can contract out functions performed by government
employees to ANCs or ANC-owned firms without going through the competitive sourcing
process normally required under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76.112
OMB Circular A-76, along with its four attachments,113 generally sets forth guidelines and
procedures for determining whether an activity should be performed in-house by the agency with
government personnel or contracted-out to the private sector. Beginning in the early 1980s, a
series of appropriations riders114 and permanent laws115 affected DOD’s use of the A-76 process.
While most of these enactments in some way limited DOD’s ability to contract out functions
using the A-76 process, one rider attached to every DOD appropriations act since 1989 has
permitted DOD to avoid the A-76 process and its restrictions on outsourcing by contracting
functions out to firms owned by ANCs, Indian tribes, or NHOs.116
The original version of this rider generally restricted outsourcing using the A-76 process, but
exempted so-called “direct conversions” to “qualified firm[s] under 51 percent Native American
112

Since the 1950s, the federal government has had a stated policy of not competing with the private sector. This policy
was first officially stated by the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) in a directive issued in 1955. See BOB Bulletin 55-4
(January 15, 1955). Since 1966, this policy has been expressed in OMB Circular A-76. This circular was substantially
revised in 1967, 1979, 1983, 1991, 1999, and, most recently and most extensively, in May 2003. The 1999 amendment
was issued to bring the circular into conformance with and assist implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-270), which generally requires each executive agency to annually inventory its
activities that are not inherently governmental and submit this inventory to OMB. In the early 1990s, much of OMB
Circular A-76 was incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulation. See 48 C.F.R. §7.3.
113
Attachment A contains the inventory process for categorizing all activities as commercial or inherently
governmental. Attachment B sets out the process to be used for public-private competitions. Attachment C gives the
rules for calculating the cost of these competitions. Attachment D supplies the definitions for the circular.
114
See, e.g., P.L. 111-8, §737, 123 Stat. 559 (March 11, 2009) (suspending new A-76 competitions).
115
See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. §§2460-2476 (“Contracting for Performance of Civilian or Industrial Type Functions”). For
more examples of this type of legislation, see CRS Report R40641, Inherently Governmental Functions and
Department of Defense Operations: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted)
, and (name redacted), at Appendix A.
116
See P.L. 101-165, §9036, 103 Stat. 1137 (November 21, 1989); P.L. 101-511, §8026, 104 Stat. 1880 (November 5,
1990); P.L. 102-172, §8026, 105 Stat. 1177 (November 26, 1991); P.L. 102-396, §9026, 106 Stat. 1906 (October 6,
1992); P.L. 103-139, §8022, 107 Stat. 1442 (November 11, 1993); P.L. 103-335, §8020, 108 Stat. 2621 (September 30,
1994); P.L. 104-61, §8020, 109 Stat. 656 (December 1, 1995); P.L. 104-208, §8015, 110 Stat. 3009-91 (September 30,
1996); P.L. 105-56, §8014, 111 Stat. 1223 (October 8, 1997); P.L. 106-79, §8014, 113 Stat. 1234 (October 25, 1999);
P.L. 106-259, §8014, 114 Stat. 677 (August 9, 2000); P.L. 107-117, §8014, 115 Stat. 2250 (January 10, 2002); P.L.
107-248, §8014, 116 Stat. 1539 (October 23, 2002); P.L. 108-87, §8014, 117 Stat. 1074 (September 30, 2003); P.L.
108-287, §8014, 118 Stat. 972 (August 5, 2004); P.L. 109-148, §8014, 119 Stat. 2700 (December 30, 2005); P.L. 109289, §8013, 120 Stat. 1275-76 (September 26, 2006); P.L. 110-116, §8015, 121 Stat. 1316-17 (November 13, 2007);
P.L. 110-329, §8016, 122 Stat. 3623-24 (September 30, 2008); P.L. 111-118, §8016, 123 Stat. 3430-31 (December 19,
2009); P.L. 112-10, §8016(b)(1)(C), 125 Stat. 59 (April 15, 2011); P.L. 112-74, §8039, 125 Stat. 814-15 (December 31,
2011).

Congressional Research Service

20

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

ownership,” among others.117 Such firms included those owned by ANCs, Indian tribes, or
individual Native Americans. The 106th Congress later made two modifications to this provision.
First, it exempted direct conversions to “qualified firms” from requirements concerning federal
employee comments and congressional notification codified in 10 U.S.C. §2461(b)-(c), as well as
from the A-76 process codified in 10 U.S.C. §2461(a).118 Second, while it maintained the
exemption for direct conversion to firms owned by ANCs and Indian tribes, it removed the
exemption for direct conversions to firms owned by Native American individuals and replaced it
with one for direct conversions to NHO-owned firms.119 The exemptions for direct conversions
remained unchanged since the 106th Congress.120
However, while these appropriations riders allowed DOD to avoid the A-76 process when
contracting out functions to ANCs or ANC-owned firms, they did not authorize DOD to make
noncompetitive awards to such entities. For this reason, DOD has used the authority to make
sole-source awards above the competitive threshold to ANC-owned firms codified in Section 8(a)
of the Small Business Act in conjunction with its authority under the appropriations riders.

Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress
Members of the 112th Congress have introduced legislation (H.R. 598, S. 236) that would remove
all the “special rules” for contracting with ANC-owned 8(a) firms described in Table 1 and
subject ANC-owned firms to eligibility and other requirements like those to which individually
owned 8(a) firms are subject.121 The proposed legislation would accomplish this, in part, by
amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) so that ANCs are no longer
deemed to be socially or economically disadvantaged for purposes of Sections 7(j) and 8(a) of the
Small Business Act.122 It would also amend the definition of “Indian tribe” contained in Section
117
P.L. 101-165, §9036 (“None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to convert to contractor
performance an activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, is
performed by more than ten Department of Defense civilian employees until a most efficient and cost-effective
organization analysis is completed on such activity or function and certification of the analysis is made to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That this section shall not
apply to a commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that ... is planned to be converted to
performance by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native American ownership.”). Identical provisions were included in
later statutes. See P.L. 101-511, §8026; P.L. 102-172, §8026; P.L. 102-396, §9026; P.L. 103-139, §8022; P.L. 103-335,
§8020; P.L. 104-61, §8020; P.L. 104-208, §8015; P.L. 105-56, §8014; P.L. 106-79, §8014.
118
P.L. 106-79, §8014 (“[T]his section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 2461 shall not apply to a
commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that … is planned to be converted to performance
by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native American ownership.”).
119
P.L. 106-259, §8014 (“[T]his section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 2461 shall not apply to a
commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that … is planned to be converted to performance
by a qualified firm under 51 percent ownership by an Indian tribe, as defined in section 450b(e) of title 25, United
States Code, or a Native Hawaiian organization, as defined in section 637(a)(15) of title 15, United States Code.”).
120
See P.L. 112-74, §8039, 125 Stat. 814-15 (December 31, 2011).
121
As introduced, H.R. 598 and S. 236 are identical in their provisions and numbering.
122
H.R. 598, §3; S. 236, §3. Currently, under ANCSA, ANCs are deemed “minority business enterprises” and,
therefore, are irrebutably presumed to be socially disadvantaged for purposes of the 8(a) Program if they are at least
51% owned by an ANC, and their management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more Alaska
Natives. 43 U.S.C. §1626(e); 15 U.S.C. §637(a)(4)(A)-(B). ANCs are similarly deemed to be “economically
disadvantaged” if Alaska Natives or descendants of Alaska Natives own a majority of the ANC’s total equity and
voting powers through their holdings of settlement common stock. Id. H.R. 598 and S. 236 would remove these
presumptions and force ANCs to qualify as “socially disadvantaged” and “economically disadvantaged” under criteria
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

21

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

8(a)(13) of the Small Business Act so that ANCs no longer constitute “Indian tribes” for purposes
of the 8(a) Program.123 By doing so, H.R. 598 and S. 236 would preclude ANCs from receiving
sole source awards in excess of $4 million ($6.5 million for manufacturing contracts) under the
authority of the Business Opportunity Development Reform Act (BODRA) of 1988.124 Section
602(a) of BODRA currently provides that the “competitive thresholds” contained in Section 8(a)
of the Small Business Act do not apply to entities defined as “Indian tribes” in Section 8(a).125
Excluding ANCs from Section 8(a)’s definition of “Indian tribe” would, thus, subject them to the
competitive thresholds, as well as require that all affiliations of ANC-owned firms count when the
firms’ size is determined and that an ANC may participate in the 8(a) Program only one time.126
The proposed legislation would also amend Section 8(a) to (1) prevent ANC-owned firms from
receiving additional sole-source awards when the total amount of competitive and sole-source
awards they have received in any year exceeds the total amount of competitive and sole-source
awards that individually owned firms may receive (currently, $100 million); (2) prohibit the SBA
from exempting ANC-owned firms from any time limitations on participation in the 8(a) Program
to which individually owned 8(a) firms are subject; and (3) require ANCs to report annually to the
SBA on their total revenue, the amount of this revenue attributable to the 8(a) Program, and the
“total amount of benefits paid to shareholders.”127 H.R. 598 and S. 236 would also require the
SBA to amend the regulations for the 8(a) Program so as to preclude SBA from waiving the
requirement that the management and daily business operations of ANC-owned firms be
controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; prohibit ANCs
from conferring eligibility to participate in the 8(a) Program on more than one firm at a time; and
preclude ANC-owned 8(a) firms from acquiring ownership interests in other 8(a) firms that
exceed the ownership interests that individually owned 8(a) firms may acquire.128

Regulatory Developments
On February 11, 2011, SBA amended its rules to change certain eligibility and other requirements
pertaining to the 8(a) Program.129 Several of these changes apply specifically to ANC-owned
firms. Under the new rules, ANC-owned 8(a) firms (1) may not receive a sole-source 8(a)
contract that is a follow-on contract to an 8(a) contract that was performed immediately
previously by a firm owned by the same ANC;130 (2) must report annually to the SBA on the
(...continued)
to be promulgated by the SBA. H.R. 598, §8(a)-(b); S. 236, §8(a)-(b).
123
H.R. 598, §1; S. 236, §1. ANCs would, however, remain “Indian tribes” under other provisions of federal law,
including the Indian Financing Act. See supra notes 92 to 97 and accompanying text.
124
ANC-owned firms could, however, potentially still receive sole-source awards under other authority, including the
Competition in Contracting Act. See supra note 47 and accompanying text.
125
P.L. 100-656, §602(a), 102 Stat. 3887-77 (November 15, 1988).
126
H.R. 598, §3 & 5; S. 236, §3 & 5.
127
H.R. 598, §4(b), 6 & 7; S. 236, §4(b), 6 & 7. It should be noted that “benefits” is not defined in H.R. 598 or S. 236,
and the term could potentially be construed to include more than just dividends paid to shareholders. ANCs often assert
that they provide other benefits to Alaska Natives than dividend payments. See supra note 7.
128
H.R. 598, §8; S. 236, §8.
129
Small Bus. Admin., Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business
Status Determinations: Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 8222 (February 11, 2011).
130
Id. at 8234 (codified at 13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(3)(2)). The proposed rule would have gone further and prohibited a
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

22

Contracting Programs for Alaska Native Corporations

benefits provided to Alaska Natives from the ANC’s participation in the 8(a) Program;131 and (3)
may be found to have potential for success if the ANC pledges to use its resources to support the
firm and to not allow the firm to cease operations.132 The rule also generally prohibits non-8(a)
firms that form joint ventures with 8(a) firms to perform sole-source contracts in excess of $4
million ($6.5 million for manufacturing contracts) from serving as subcontractors (at any tier) on
the contract.133 In addition, the rule indicates that it is the SBA’s policy to have ANC-owned
firms’ applications for the 8(a) Program processed at the San Francisco Division of Program
Certification and Eligibility whenever possible.134 These applications had previously been
processed in the Anchorage District Office.
These changes generally took effect on March 14, 2011, although the SBA has delayed
implementation of the requirement that ANCs report on the benefits provided to Alaska Natives
through their participation in the 8(a) Program.135

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)
Legislative Attorney
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Acknowledgments
(name redacted), former CRS specialist in American Indian policy, and (name redacted), former CRS
legislative attorney, co-authored this report.

(...continued)
newly certified 8(a) firm from receiving an 8(a) contract in a secondary NAICS code that is or was the primary NAICS
code of another firm owned by the same ANC for two years after its admission to the program. See Small Bus. Admin.,
Small Business Size Regulations; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations:
Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 55694, 55702 (October 28, 2009).
131
76 Fed. Reg. at 8264 (codified at 13 C.F.R. §124.604). The SBA did, however, clarify that this is purely a reporting
requirement, not an eligibility requirement. Id. at 8236.
132
Id. at 8235 (codified at 13 C.F.R. §124.109(c)(6)(i)-(iii)).
133
Id. at 8241 (codified at 13 C.F.R. §124.506(b)(4)). The non-8(a) firm may serve as a subcontractor only if the SBA’s
Associate Administrator for Business Development determines that other potential subcontractors are not available.
134
Id. at 8238. The rule also notes that, when the San Francisco office has a backlog, applications may be processed by
the Philadelphia Division of Program Certification and Eligibility. Id.
135
The regulations promulgated in February provided that this reporting requirement would be effective “as of
September 9, 2011, unless SBA further delays implementation through a Notice in the Federal Register.” Id. at 8222.
However, SBA appears to have delayed reporting, in part, so that it could consult with the Tribes. See, e.g., Small Bus.
Admin., Notice of Tribal Consultations, 76 Fed. Reg. 27859 (May 13, 2011); Small Bus. Admin., Notice of Tribal
Consultations, 76 Fed. Reg. 12273 (March 7, 2011). Most recently, SBA gave notice that it has submitted the reporting
requirements to the Office of Management and Budget for review. See Small Bus. Admin., Notice of Reporting
Requirements for OMB Review, 77 Fed. Reg. 12902 (March 2, 2012).

Congressional Research Service

23

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40855. Public record. Not legal advice.