Comment on FR Doc # 2026-11765

Dear Associate Administrator Lambert: I write to comment on the proposed rule in strong opposition to the manner in which it dismantles the evidentiary framework of the 8(a) Business Development Program. I offer this comment from a vantage point few commenters will share: I have served the 8(a) program from both sides of the table — as a certified 8(a) contractor who built a business through it, and as a former SBA Business Opportunity Specialist who administered it. As a Business Opportunity Specialist, I was responsible for evaluating applicants, monitoring participants, and ensuring firms met the program's rigorous eligibility and compliance standards. I know firsthand that admission to the 8(a) program was never automatic and never a formality. Applicants were scrutinized for economic disadvantage, business capacity, and continued eligibility at every annual review. The rebuttable presumption the SBA now proposes to eliminate was not a loophole; it was an evidentiary starting point, grounded in documented, well-established patterns of disadvantage, that a case manager like me then tested against the facts of each individual application. As an 8(a) contractor, I lived the outcome the program was designed to produce. In five years, I was awarded almost 15 million in contract awards through the program, creating job opportunities for approximately 40 employees. Unfortunately, due to a failed partnership, the business closed. The program did exactly what Congress intended — it gave a qualified, capable business a fair path into a federal marketplace that is otherwise extraordinarily difficult to break into. I did not receive contracts because of a presumption; I received them because I was prepared, competitive, and held to the same performance standards as any other contractor. For these reasons, I ask the SBA to reconsider the following aspects of the proposed rule. 1. The “de minimis” impact conclusion does not reflect administrative reality. The SBA estimates roughly 4,190 individually owned applicants will be affected annually, yet certifies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Having processed applications myself, I can attest that requiring each applicant to independently assemble and document evidence of discrimination against their group — in place of a presumption already supported by decades of federal findings — is not a marginal change. It is a substantial new burden on applicants and on the case managers who must adjudicate it. I urge the SBA to prepare a full regulatory flexibility analysis reflecting the true burden. 2. The new evidentiary standard will deter qualified applicants. The proposed test requires applicants to produce documentary evidence — policies, reports, statements, or rulings — showing their group was disadvantaged and that they suffered material harm. Many capable business owners without legal or research resources will be discouraged from applying at all, not because they lack merit, but because they cannot navigate the evidentiary showing. As someone who counseled applicants, I saw how easily administrative complexity turns qualified firms away. I ask the SBA to publish clear guidance and concrete examples of acceptable evidence before finalizing any rule. 3. Current participants have real reliance interests. The SBA states it does not currently intend to apply the new test to existing participants at their next annual review, but invites comment on reliance interests. Those interests are substantial and concrete. As I have continued to service businesses in the 8a community, I have seen first hand the impact and growth this program has impacted for small businesses. I have trained more than 4,ooo businesses on leveraging all set-asides to create jobs and generational wealth. I ask the SBA to commit, in the final rule, that participants admitted under the prior standard will not be re-evaluated or destabilized under the new test. 4. The program's development mission must be preserved. The 8(a) program exists to build durable, competitive small businesses and to expand opportunity in communities that federal contracting has historically overlooked. I have seen its results as an administrator and lived them as a contractor. Whatever changes the SBA makes to align the program with governing law, I urge the agency to preserve its core developmental purpose and to avoid steps that would shrink the pipeline of exactly the businesses the program was created to serve. Thank you for considering my comment. I offer my perspective in the sincere hope that the SBA will implement any required changes in a way that protects both the integrity and the mission of this vital program. Respectfully, Paula K. Watts CEO, Government Procurement Innovators, LLC Atlanta, Georgia