Comment on FR Doc # 2026-11765
DALS Credit Solutions CoAnalysis pending
Comment on SBA Proposed Rule<br/>SBA-2026-0133 / RIN 3245-AI75<br/>Reforms To Remove SBA’s 8(a) Program’s Rebuttable Presumption of Social Disadvantage for Individually Owned Firms Only<br/><br/>Submitted by:<br/>Lynette T. Stevenson<br/>Founder, DALS Credit Solutions Co.<br/><br/>I submit this comment in response to SBA-2026-0133 / RIN 3245-AI75, “Reforms to Remove SBA’s 8(a) Program’s Rebuttable Presumption of Social Disadvantage for Individually Owned Firms Only.” I also submit this comment in the broader context of Docket ID SBA-2024-0002 — Small Business Contracting: Increasing Small Business Participation in Multiple Award Contracts.<br/><br/>SBA-2024-0002 was never simply about technical revisions to multiple-award contracts. It exposed a structural flaw: whether small businesses receive meaningful access to federal contracting opportunities or whether participation is preserved in appearance while acquisition remains locked behind multiple-award vehicles, task orders, delivery orders, amendments, and selective rulemaking language.<br/><br/>The path from Ultima to this proposed rule reveals a fragmented approach to program integrity and small business access.<br/><br/>June 15, 2023-GSA issued final OASIS+ RFPs, creating a 10-year Best-in-class multi-award vehicle with socioeconomic tracks, including 8(a). OASIS+ matters because vehicle access often determines market access.<br/><br/>July 19, 2023-Ultima Services Corp. v. USDA held the SBA's race-based rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage unconstitutional, changing the entry and continuing-eligibility requirements for ALL 8(a) firms.<br/><br/>Late Summer/Fall 2023: SBA required individually owned 8(a) firms to submit personal narratives proving individual social disadvantage to receive new 8(a) contracts. This shifted a heavy burden onto individually owned firms under compressed and uncertain conditions.<br/><br/>December 2024: SBA-2024-0002 placed small business participation on multiple-award contracts into the rulemaking record. The question was whether small businesses would gain meaningful access or merely be counted near opportunities they could not reach.<br/><br/>Late 2024: GSA issued initial OASIS+ awards and Notices to Proceed, making these IDIQs a central vehicle for federal services spending.<br/><br/>June 12, 2025 — SBA withdrew SBA-2024-0002. The core question remained unanswered: was the government increasing actual participation or preserving a structure where small businesses could be certified, named, and counted without contract access?<br/><br/>Summer 2025 — Madison Services Group collected approximately 500 small business names for advocacy. The Senate also moved forward 23-0 to place the Rule of Two into the Small Business Act. However, language associated with Ranking Member Nydia Velázquez provided that the Rule of Two does not apply to task orders and delivery orders.<br/><br/>That distinction is critical. If the Rule of Two does not apply at the order level, small business access is choked off where modern federal spending occurs.<br/><br/>January 22, 2026 — SBA eliminated the post-Ultima narrative fallback system and triggered an aggressive 8(a) data call and integrity audit focused on profit distribution, performance of work, mentor-protégé structures, subcontracting limits, joint-venture documentation, control, and eligibility.<br/><br/>That audit matters because SBA already knew 8(a) integrity issues extended beyond individual social disadvantage narratives. The issues included control, pass-through risk, mentor-protégé arrangements, subcontracting compliance, and joint-venture integrity.<br/><br/>Winter 2026: GSA opened OASIS+ Phase II continuous enrollment and expanded the vehicle to 13 service domains, increasing the stakes for 8(a) firms.<br/><br/>Spring 2026: SBA suspended over 1,000 firms from the 8(a) program after strict documentation demands. OHA activity, including ATI Government Solutions, LLC, also revealed entity-owned firm issues involving structural control and alleged control by non-disadvantaged executives.<br/><br/>June 11, 2026: SBA issued SBA-2026-0133. The rule removes the rebuttable presumption and requires an individual demonstration of harm, but it applies only to small businesses owned and controlled by individuals. It does not amend or affect entity-owned firms, including tribes, ANCs, NHOs, or CDCs ad the SBA relies on constitutional and statutory concerns after Ultima, but reform stops at individually owned firms. The courts did not hold entity-owned firms immune from program-integrity review, structural audits, control review, or competitive-impact scrutiny. SBA made that policy choice. Again, entity-owned firms competing in the same 8(a) ecosystem and major multiple-award vehicles remain structurally unaffected, and why are we currently in the 8(a) audit, and what has been the outcome thus far? If that is not a double standard, I don't know what is. <br/><br/>Respectfully, LS. Please find the attached document. <br/><br/>