[Federal Register: December 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 247)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 73285-73304] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27de07-17] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 121, 125, 127 and 134 RIN 3245-AF40 Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Assistance Procedures AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes to amend its regulations governing small business contracting procedures. This proposed rule would add a new part that would implement procedures to increase procurement opportunities for [[Page 73286]] Women-Owned Small Business Concerns, as authorized under the Small Business Act. It would also make the relevant conforming amendments to SBA's current procurement regulations. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 3245-AF40, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.reglations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Robert C. Taylor, Office of Contract Assistance, Office of Government Contracting, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. All comments will be posted on http://www.reglations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at http://www.reglations.gov, please submit the comments to Robert C. Taylor and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will make a final determination as to whether the comments will be published or not. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Taylor, Office of Contract Assistance, Office of Government Contracting, WOSBProposedRegulation@sba.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Women-owned businesses have been regarded as the fastest growing segment of the business community in the United States. Although between 1997 and 2002 the growth rate in the number of women-owned small businesses (WOSBs) was almost twice that of all firms, WOSBs have not generally received a commensurate increase in their share of Federal contracting dollars. Several congressional and executive efforts over the years to increase Federal contracting with WOSBs have not enhanced the WOSB share of Federal contracting dollars as much as anticipated. For example, in 1979, when Executive Order 12138 charged Federal agencies with responsibility for providing procurement assistance to women-owned businesses, WOSBs received only 0.2 percent of all Federal procurements. More than 9 years later, the percentage of WOSB Federal procurements had grown to only one percent. Similarly, in 1988, the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 100-588 (Oct. 25, 1988), was enacted to assist women in starting, managing and growing small businesses. This program has been successful in assisting thousands of women in obtaining business financing and in business formation, but has enjoyed less success in the Federal procurement arena. Section 7106 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), Public Law 103-355 (Oct. 13, 1994), amended the Small Business Act (the Act) by establishing a target that would result in greater opportunities for women to compete for Federal contracts. FASA, among other things, established a government-wide goal for participation by WOSBs in procurement contracts of not less than 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year. FASA also directed that WOSBs, like other small businesses and small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), have the maximum practicable opportunity to become subcontractors for Federal contracts exceeding $100,000, and it mandated that WOSBs be included in subcontracting plans required under Section 8(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(d). Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) data indicates that since fiscal year (FY) 1996, Federal agencies have not met the separate 5 percent government-wide WOSB goal for prime contracts and subcontracts. However, the share of Federal prime contracting dollars to WOSBs has increased over the years. For example, in FY 2000, WOSBs received 2.3 percent of the approximately $200 billion in Federal prime contract awards. The share of WOSB prime contract awards increased to 2.49 percent in FY 2001, and again to 2.90, 2.98, and 3.03 percent in FYs 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively. In FY 2005, WOSB prime contract awards increased to 3.18 percent and in FY 2006, increased again to 3.41 percent of prime contract awards. Nonetheless, the total percent of WOSB prime contract awards stills falls short of the statutory goal of 5 percent. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report in February 2001 discussing the trends and obstacles in Federal contracting with WOSBs since FY 1996. See Trends and Challenges in Contracting With Women-Owned Small Businesses, GAO-01-346. In that report, GAO noted that contracting officials complain that one of the primary obstacles in achieving the statutory five percent WOSB goal was the absence of a ``targeted government program for contracting with WOSBs.'' Section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-554, provided such a mechanism. Section 811, enacted on December 21, 2000, amended the Act by adding a new section 8(m), 15 U.S.C. 637(m), authorizing contracting officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs for certain Federal contracts in certain industries. Due to an apparent drafting error in the cross-reference and the inter- relationships between subparagraphs (2)(C), (3) and (4) of 15 U.S.C. 637(m), subparagraph (2)(C) literally appears to authorize set-asides for Federal contracts only in industries in which WOSBs are determined to be substantially underrepresented. However, if the statute were construed by SBA not to authorize set-asides in industries in which WOSBs were underrepresented, the provision in the statute requiring SBA to conduct a study to determine industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented, as well as the section's waiver provision, would arguably be rendered inoperative or contradictory. Accordingly, SBA has drafted the proposed rule to account for this apparent drafting error based on its best understanding of the meaning and intent of section 8(m) read as a whole and has interpreted the statute to authorize set asides for industries in which WOSBs are determined to be underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement. In the absence of corrective legislation clarifying the confusing cross-references among these provisions, however, some degree of uncertainty will remain with respect to the question of whether section 8(m) effectively authorizes appropriate set-asides in industries where WOSBs are merely underrepresented rather than substantially underrepresented. The new section 8(m) of the Act explicitly limits the contracting officer's authority to restrict competition to contracts not exceeding $3 million ($5 million for manufacturing). Furthermore, to be eligible as a WOSB under section 8(m) of the Act, the firm must be a ``small business concern owned and controlled by women'' as defined in section 3(n) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(n). Section 8(m) also requires that such concerns be at least 51 percent owned by one or more women who are economically disadvantaged, except with respect to procurements in industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are substantially underrepresented in Federal contracting and has waived the economically disadvantaged requirement. Moreover, section 8(m) of the Act requires SBA to establish standards for determining the eligibility of a concern as a WOSB or economically disadvantaged WOSB (EDWOSB). It also [[Page 73287]] charges SBA with responsibility for verifying a concern's eligibility and provides the penalties for a concern's misrepresentation of its status as an EDWOSB or WOSB. Lastly, section 8(m) requires SBA to conduct a study to identify the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented and substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement and requires the head of any department or agency to provide SBA with any information that SBA deems necessary to conduct the study. SBA initially completed the legislatively mandated study in September 2001. However, in March 2005, the National Academy of Science (NAS) issued an independent evaluation determining that SBA's original study was ``fatally flawed.'' In response to the NAS's findings, SBA issued a solicitation in October 2005 seeking a contractor to perform a revised study in accordance with the NAS report. In February 2006, SBA awarded a contract to the Kauffman-RAND Institute for Entrepreneurship Public Policy (RAND) to complete a revised study of the availability and utilization of WOSBs in prime contracts. The RAND report was published in April 2007 and is available to the public at http://www.RAND.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR442 . On June 15, 2006, the SBA published in the Federal Register, 71 FR 34550, a proposed rule, with request for comments, to amend its regulations in accordance with Sec. 8(m) of the Small Business Act. Based on SBA's evaluation of the public and inter-agency comments received, discussions with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and further examination of Section 8(m), it has been determined that the June 15, 2006, proposed rule requires significant changes that warrant further public comment and consideration. In addition, rather than propose a separate rulemaking, SBA believes it would be expeditious to include in this proposed rule implementation of the RAND study results which identified the industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented and substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement. Whether SBA went forward with a final rule on WOSB status and procedures and simultaneously proposed a rule to implement the RAND Study results or combined the two rules into one comprehensive rule, any potential set-asides under the procedures could not be made until the RAND report rule had been finalized. Therefore, SBA's action of combining the RAND report rule with this re-proposed June 15, 2006 rule not only obviates the need for a separate rulemaking but significantly, will not delay the implementation of the WOSB procedures. II. RAND Report Results The RAND report outlined several approaches to identify underrepresentation of WOSBs in Federal procurement, each of which yields a different result. SBA has preliminarily adopted the approach set forth below. RAND's report identifies 28 different approaches to determine underrepresentation and substantial underrepresentation. Twenty of these approaches compare FY 2006 Central Contractor Registration (CCR) registration data to FY 2005 Federal Procurement Data System/Next Generation (FPDS/NG) procurement data, while eight (8) compare the 2002 Survey of Business Owners (SBO) from the five-year Economic Census to FYs 2002/2003 FPDS/NG procurement data. SBA eliminated the eight approaches based on a comparison of the 2002 SBO data to FYs 2002/2003 FPDS/NG procurement data for the following reasons: (1) The SBO does not distinguish between WOSBs and women-owned businesses (large and small), while the procedures authorized by Congress are specifically targeted towards WOSBs (only small businesses); (2) since the SBO is generally not available for two years after the survey is completed, the SBO is never current; and lastly (3) the SBO cannot fine-tune the industry groupings beyond the two-digit NAICS level. In its 2005 report examining SBA's 2001 methodology, the NAS criticized SBA's use of the two-digit Major Group Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industry classification as inadequate. The two- digit Major Group SIC designation corresponds to the current three- digit Subsector NAICS designation. Thus, while the NAS criticized SBA's use of two-digit SIC information, the SBO two-digit NAICS data is even less precise than the two-digit SIC data. Both the CCR and FPDS-NG, on the other hand, provide the capability to use four-digit NAICS classifications. For this reason, SBA also eliminated 16 approaches based on CCR comparisons to FPDS/NG 2005 procurement data which used two and three-digit NAICS codes. As a result, four approaches were left as possibly viable, all based on 2004 CCR and 2005 procurement data and four-digit NAICS codes. Two of the four approaches were based on the dollar value of contracts awarded and the other two were based on the number of contracts awarded. SBA eliminated the two approaches based on the number of the contracts awarded. When discussing whether to use dollars or numbers as the measure of underrepresentation, it was necessary to evaluate the benefits and limitations of either choice. After careful analysis, it was decided to adopt an approach consistent with Congressional measures, which use dollars. Congress appropriates Federal funding in dollars, the Federal budget is divided in dollars, all Federal government contracts are awarded in dollars, and the accounting and auditing processes focus on how these dollars are spent. Dollar amounts can easily be compared across agencies, programs and NAICS codes. Tracking dollar amounts also avoids problems that arise from the contracting nuances of the individual agencies. Contract actions do not allow for an accurate accounting of the financial benefits and business development that occur when small businesses receive a Federal contract. Finally and perhaps most importantly, Congress, through the Small Business Act, has given direction only in dollars. Section 15(g)(1) is the section in the Act that provides direction on counting small business goals. All of those goals are aimed at achieving a dollar amount (total value) relative to all dollars expended in Federal procurement. In particular, the goal for small business concerns owned and controlled by women states that: ``The Government-wide goal for participation by small business concerns owned and controlled by women shall be established at not less than 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year.'' Congress authorized the contracting assistance procedures in Section 8(m) as a result of the Federal Government's persistent deficiencies in achieving this goal. Thus, the disparity measure based on contract dollars is consistent with the five percent goal, which is also based on contract dollars. Accordingly, two approaches remained available for SBA to use to determine underrepresentation. Of these two approaches, one was based on a full sample, and the other was based on a trimmed sample (eliminating the top and bottom 0.5 percent of the data). RAND stated in its report that it found little benefit to trimming the sample and that it puts more weight on the full-sample results (Chapter 4, Results, page 22). Accordingly, SBA eliminated the trimmed-sample results. The four industries identified using the adopted approach from the RAND [[Page 73288]] report (NAICS codes 9281--National Security and International Affairs, 3328--Coating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied Activities, 3371-- Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing, and 4412--Other Motor Vehicle Dealers) are those industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in government-wide Federal procurement. The RAND report does not, however, expressly find discrimination in the identified industries. The equal protection requirements of the Fifth Amendment prohibit Federal agencies from discriminating on the basis of sex in awarding contracts unless the preference furthers important governmental objectives and the means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996). This standard, which requires an ``exceedingly persuasive justification,'' id., is commonly referred to as ``intermediate scrutiny.'' In applying this standard, Federal courts have generally required that the government establish probative evidence of discrimination in the relevant industry in order to justify sex-based contracting preferences. See, e.g., Engineering Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Metropolitan Dade County, 122 F.3d 895, 910 (11th Cir. 1998). Based on these precedents, the Department of Justice has advised SBA that before a contracting officer may restrict competition to WOSBs under section 8(m), the concerned agency must determine through appropriate analysis (including analysis of its own procurement history) that the set-aside will be consistent with the foregoing constitutional standards. In particular, to ensure uniformity, SBA proposes that the agency must determine whether the set-aside is substantially related to remedying sex discrimination in that industry. III. Summary of Regulations To implement the new section 8(m) of the Act, this proposed rule would establish procedures that will assist WOSBs in procuring contracting opportunities with the Federal Government. Although these procedures would be considered part of SBA's government contracting programs set forth under part 125 of title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), for ease of reference, the proposed WOSB procedures would be contained in a new part 127 of title 13. As proposed, the regulations provide the general definitions and clarifications of the procedures and eligibility requirements under subparts A and B of this rule. The regulations also provide the certification procedures and the process for appealing WOSB status protest determinations to SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). These proposed regulations also provide the specific eligibility requirements for qualification as an EDWOSB or WOSB and state the requirement for each agency to conduct the appropriate analysis (including analysis of its own procurement history) to ensure that the set-aside will be consistent with constitutional standards. This rule would also modify the process for reserving contract opportunities in industries in which SBA and agencies determine that WOSBs are substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement. To provide procuring activities greater flexibility in structuring their procurements to achieve WOSB Federal contracting goals, this rule would grant contracting officers the discretion to waive the requirement for competition by EDWOSBs in those industries in which WOSBs are determined to be substantially underrepresented. The rule also provides conforming amendments necessary to integrate these proposed procedures into SBA's size and government contracting regulations. SBA invites comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. IV. Section-by-Section Analysis The following is a section-by-section analysis of the proposed rule. A. Conforming Amendments to Parts 121 and 125 The authority citation for 13 CFR part 121 would be revised to include 15 U.S.C. 637(m), since part 121 would be amended to include references to the WOSB Procurement Opportunity Procedures (Procedures) Section 121.401 would be amended to add the procedures governing women- owned contracting requirements to the list of government procurement programs subject to size determinations. This would subject EDWOSBs and WOSBs to size protests and determinations under part 121 of title 13. Section 121.1001 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(9) to describe who may initiate a size protest in connection with a particular requirement set-aside for women-owned small business concerns. That section would provide that any concern that submits an offer for a specific requirement set-aside under the authority of Sec. 8(m) of the Act, the contracting officer, SBA Government Contracting Area Director and the Director for Government Contracting or designee, may protest the size of another offeror for the particular requirement. Section 121.1008 would be amended by adding a sentence that requires the SBA Government Contracting Area Director, or designee, to notify SBA's Director, Office of Government Contracting, of receipt of a size protest involving a concern that is designated in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) as a certified EDWOSB or WOSB. Section 125.6 would be amended to provide that EDWOSBs and WOSBs awarded a set-aside contract using these procedures must satisfy certain requirements if they intend to subcontract. These subcontracting limitations are the same limitations that are currently in place for an 8(a) contract or an unrestricted procurement where a concern has claimed a small disadvantaged price evaluation preference. B. Addition of a New Part 127 A new part 127 would be added to title 13 of the CFR to implement the procedures that are required under the statute. Subpart A provides background information concerning contracting opportunities for women- owned small business concerns. Specifically, Sec. Sec. 127.100 and 127.101 describe the purpose, legal basis and assistance available to eligible WOSBs. Section 127.102 defines the relevant terms used in part 127. Many of those definitions are identical to or derived from the definitions provided in parts 121 and 124 of this title, governing SBA's size, 8(a) Business Development (BD) and SDB programs. The proposed rule also uses several newly defined terms which SBA developed for ease of reference to various statutory requirements. For example, the proposed rule uses the term ``economically disadvantaged WOSB'' or ``EDWOSB'' to refer to the Act's requirement that certain WOSBs be not less than 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are U.S. citizens and economically disadvantaged. This rule also defines what constitutes ``underrepresented'' and ``substantially underrepresented.'' SBA has defined the terms ``underrepresentation'' and ``substantial underrepresentation'' in this proposed rule to be a disparity ratio representing either the WOSB share of Federal prime contract dollars divided by the WOSB share of total business receipts. If the disparity ratio falls between 0.5 and 0.8, underrepresentation is found. If the disparity ratio falls between 0.0 and 0.5, [[Page 73289]] substantial underrepresentation is found. These disparity ratios were found to be reasonable by the NAS in its 2005 report analyzing the preliminary study conducted by SBA in 2001. See The National Academies Press, Analyzing Information on Women- Owned Small Business in Federal Contracting (2005), available at http://www.nasonline.com. SBA adopted the threshold value of 0.8 based in part on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's use of that threshold as a rule of thumb for defining underrepresentation in enforcing antidiscrimination employment laws. The threshold value of 0.8 also has the advantage, compared with a higher value, of reducing classification errors due to sampling variability or other sources of errors within the underlying procurement data. SBA adopted the threshold value of 0.5 largely because it is sufficiently below 0.8 and sufficiently higher than zero to distinguish substantial from less than substantial underrepresentation. Subpart B describes the eligibility requirements for qualification as an EDWOSB or WOSB. Because these qualifications entail similar ownership, control and economic disadvantage criteria as used in the 8(a) BD and SDB programs, this proposed rule similarly requires that the concern be at least 51 percent unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens. For reasons of consistency, the economic disadvantage requirement in Sec. 127.203 also has the same $750,000 threshold for personal net worth as does the 8(a) BD program and the SDB program for purposes of determining a program participant's continuing eligibility. In order to qualify as an EDWOSB, the concern must also prove that it is economically disadvantaged. One notable exception is with respect to the application of community property laws. The Act explicitly provides that ownership shall be determined without regard to any community property laws. As a result, Sec. 127.201 precludes the application of community property laws in WOSB ownership determinations. Subpart C of the proposed rule sets forth the self-certification requirements for concerns that submit offers on procurements set aside. Section 8(m)(2)(F)(i) of the Act authorizes certification by ``a Federal agency, a State government, or a national certifying entity'' approved by SBA. Consistent with that provision, subpart C of this proposed rule establishes the procedures for obtaining EDWOSB or WOSB certification from SBA. Specifically, proposed Sec. 127.300 provides that at the time a concern submits an offer on a specific contract reserved for competition under these procedures, it must be registered in the CCR and have a current self-certification posted on the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) indicating that it qualifies as an EDWOSB or WOSB. That section would further detail the specific representations concerns must include as part of their self-certification, including that: (1) The firm is a small business concern under the size standard assigned to the particular procurement; (2) it is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens or it is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens and are economically disadvantaged; and (3) neither SBA nor an SBA-approved certifier has determined that the concern does not currently qualify as an EDWOSB or WOSB. Because ORCA is generally the accepted representations process that concerns currently follow to self-certify other forms of small business status in Federal procurements, using that system for the WOSB self-certification process would minimize interference with the procurement process and the burden on contracting officers. Sections 127.301 through 127.303 provide the specific procedures for obtaining EDWOSB and WOSB certification. SBA believes that the self-certification process set forth in this rule is consistent with the statutory framework of Section 8(m) and with prevailing Supreme Court precedent. It also would minimize delays and disruption to the contracting process by utilizing the existing system of representations and certifications in Federal procurement and by not requiring contracting officers to review voluminous documents supporting a concern's self-certification. Proposed Sec. 127.301 describes the circumstances under which a contracting officer may accept a concern's self-certification for the particular procurement for which the self-certification is made. That section would provide that when a contracting officer receives an EDWOSB or WOSB status protest from another offeror, or when the contracting officer has information that calls into question the eligibility of a concern, the contracting officer must refer the matter to SBA for verification of the concern's eligibility pursuant to the WOSB status protest procedures under Subpart F. To minimize interference with the procurement process, this rule would also recognize a concern's certification as an EDWOSB or WOSB by an entity approved by SBA. In particular, Sec. Sec. 127.300 and 127.302 would provide that a concern may use a certification by another entity as evidence of its status as a qualified EDWOSB or WOSB in support of its representations in ORCA if the concern: (1) Has a current, valid SBA certification as an 8(a) BD or SDB women-owned concern in good standing under those programs; (2) has a current valid certification as a woman-owned business under DOT's DBE program; or (3) has a current valid certification by an entity designated as an SBA- approved certifier on SBA's Web site located at http://www.sba.gov/GC. Sections 127.303 and 127.304 explain how entities are selected and identified as approved certifiers and how concerns may obtain certifications from such entities. Because all certifying entities may not use the same eligibility criteria applicable to EDWOSBs and WOSBs as provided under Subpart B of this rule, SBA does not intend to automatically accept third-party certifications for purposes of contracting with WOSBs. Rather, once SBA has determined that a certifier uses the same criteria and follows appropriate procedures and standards, SBA may designate that entity as an approved certifier. The Agency will maintain a list of all approved certifiers on its Web site. Section 127.305 would explain the extent to which concerns that are determined not to qualify as an EDWOSB or WOSB may submit a self- certification under Sec. 127.300(b). Specifically, under Sec. 127.305, a concern that SBA or an SBA-approved certifier determines is not a qualified EDWOSB or WOSB would be prohibited from self-certifying unless SBA subsequently determines that the concern qualifies as an EDWOSB or WOSB pursuant to the examination procedures under Sec. 127.405. Those procedures specifically allow concerns determined to be an ineligible EDWOSB or WOSB to request that SBA conduct an examination to determine their eligibility at any time the concern believes in good faith that it satisfies all of the eligibility requirements. Together, Sec. Sec. 127.300 through 127.305 describe the streamlined representations concerns must provide to contracting officers to certify eligibility and authorize contracting officers to refer questionable self-certifications to SBA for verification of eligibility pursuant to the protest procedures. Robust protest procedures coupled with the provisions for appropriate examinations to monitor [[Page 73290]] the eligibility of firms that self-certify their status under Subpart D, will minimize the potential for fraud and abuse. These procedures will also assist in ensuring that only eligible WOSBs receive the benefits consistent with prevailing Supreme Court precedent. Proposed Sec. Sec. 127.400 through 127.405 under subpart D discuss the examination process for determining the continuing eligibility of a firm that is designated on CCR as a certified EDWOSB or WOSB. Those sections explain when and how SBA will conduct the examination and the decertification procedures SBA will follow when it is unable to verify that a concern qualifies as an EDWOSB or WOSB. Proposed Sec. 127.401 also explains the distinctions between the examination process and the EDWOSB and WOSB protest mechanism provided under the proposed subpart F. The proposed Sec. 127.401 makes clear that the examination process is intended to verify the continuing EDWOSB or WOSB eligibility of a concern generally, while an EDWOSB or WOSB status protest is designed to determine the EDWOSB or WOSB eligibility of a concern for a specific procurement. The separate WOSB or EDWOSB examination procedures will assist in maintaining the integrity of the certification process by subjecting certified concerns to examinations of their EDWOSB and WOSB eligibility certifications. Consequently, examinations will serve to supplement the protest mechanism by monitoring the continuing eligibility of firms that claim EDWOSB and WOSB status. Moreover, Sec. 127.401(a) further provides that if SBA is conducting an examination of a concern that has submitted an offer on a pending EDWOSB or WOSB requirement and SBA has credible information that the concern may not qualify as an EDWOSB or WOSB, SBA may file a protest under Sec. 127.600 to challenge the concern's eligibility for award for the specific requirement. The provisions governing the available Federal contract assistance for WOSBs and EDWOSBs are set forth in proposed subpart E. Sections 127.500 through 127.502 discuss the industries in which contracting officers are authorized to restrict competition to EDWOSBs and WOSBs. Section 127.500 explains that contracting officers may only restrict competition to EDWOSBs and WOSBs in industries in which (1) SBA has determined that WOSBs are either underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement and (2) the procuring agency has found, through appropriate analysis of its own procurement history, that the set-aside would satisfy the equal protection requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Sections 127.501 and 127.502 indicate how SBA will determine, identify and provide public notice of those industries. Those sections, like section 8(m) of the Act, do not specify how SBA will determine whether WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in a particular industry. Instead, Sec. 127.501 provides generally that at least every five years SBA, or another entity authorized to act on its behalf (e.g., a contractor), will conduct a study to identify the underrepresented or substantially underrepresented industries. The study will include an analysis of the extent of disparity of WOSBs in Federal contracting. Based upon that analysis, SBA will designate by 4- digit NAICS Industry Subsector industries in which WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. Under Sec. 127.501(b), where an agency seeks to reserve a requirement for WOSBs or EDWOSBs in one of the industries identified by SBA as being an industry in which WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented government-wide, the agency must ensure that the set-aside meets the equal protection requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It must conduct an analysis of the agency's past procurement activities and make a finding of discrimination by that agency in that particular industry sufficient to ensure that the set-aside is substantially related to an important governmental objective. As the agency primarily charged with implementing this and other set-aside programs under section 8 of the Act, SBA proposes this requirement on contracting agencies to ensure that this program is implemented uniformly across the government and in a manner that ensures it will be constitutional under the current Supreme Court jurisprudence. Section 127.502 indicates that SBA will post a list of the designated industries on its Internet Web site. The list of designated industries also may be obtained from the local SBA district office and may be posted on the General Services Administration Internet Web site. Section 127.503 addresses when a contracting officer is authorized to restrict competition to WOSBs or EDWOSBs. It establishes a similar ``rule-of-two'' standard as used in small business set-asides. This standard requires the contracting officer to reasonably expect that at least two eligible companies would bid if the contract is set aside, based on market research. That section further makes clear that a contracting officer may not restrict competition to eligible EDWOSBs or WOSBs if an 8(a) BD Participant is currently performing the requirement under the 8(a) BD Program or SBA has accepted the requirement for performance under the authority of the 8(a) BD program, unless SBA consented to release the requirement from the 8(a) BD program. Because this limitation on the restriction of competition serves to reconcile the ``goal'' requirements of 15 U.S.C. 644(g) with the requirements of section 8(m), it is authorized by the Administrator's general authority to ``make such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the authority vested in him by or pursuant to this chapter'' and is intended to clarify that the implementation of this program does not affect the Administrator's authority or responsibilities under the 8(a) BD program. 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6). SBA does not intend to imply through lack of mention other programs, such as HUBZone set-asides or service- disabled veteran-owned small business set-asides, that contract requirements currently being fulfilled through other set-aside programs must be brought into this program or that this program should be give preference over other set-aside programs. Sections 127.504 and 127.505 describe the additional requirements a concern must satisfy to submit an offer on an EDWOSB or WOSB requirement. Section 127.504 indicates that in addition to the certification requirements under subpart C, offerors on EDWOSB or WOSB requirements must also certify that they are small under the size standard for the procurement and that they will comply with the limitations on subcontracting rule set forth in Sec. 125.6 of this title. Section 127.505 explains that an EDWOSB or WOSB that is a non- manufacturer, as defined in Sec. 121.406(b), may submit an offer for an EDWOSB or WOSB requirement if it meets the requirements of Sec. 121.406(b). Proposed Sec. 127.506 governs what is required of joint venture relationships involving WOSBs when submitting an offer on an EDWOSB or WOSB contract. The proposed Subpart F sets forth the procedures for protesting the status of a concern as an EDWOSB or WOSB, including the procedures for filing protests, for rendering protest determinations and for appealing those determinations to SBA's Office of [[Page 73291]] Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Sections 127.600 through 127.602 describe who is authorized to file and decide EDWOSB and WOSB status protests and the permissible grounds for filing protests. Sections 127.603 through 127.606 prescribe format, and applicable deadlines for filing and determining EDWOSB and WOSB protests and for appealing SBA's protest determinations. Unlike eligibility examinations under the proposed subpart D, protests are time-sensitive because they are tied to a particular procurement. As a result, Sec. Sec. 127.604 and 127.605 prescribe filing and decision deadlines to minimize undue interruptions in the underlying procurement. The final section of the proposed part 127, subpart G, Sec. 127.700, prescribes the applicable penalties that may be imposed on any person or concern that misrepresents the status of a concern as an EDWOSB or WOSB for purposes of receiving a Federal procurement. C. Amendments to Part 134 SBA is also proposing to amend Part 134 to include procedures for an EDWOSB or WOSB to appeal a protest determination under Part 127 of this Chapter. Specifically, Sec. 134.102 would be amended to give OHA jurisdiction to hear appeals on WOSB or EDWOSB protests. Further, Sec. 134.515 would be revised to reflect a change in when a judge may reconsider an appeal. A new subpart, Subpart G, would be added to prescribe the procedures for filing and processing the appeals before OHA. This subpart will only apply to appeals to OHA from formal protest determinations made by the Director, Office of Government Contracting (D/GC) in connection with a WOSB or EDWOSB status protest. Procedures for size determination protests and NAICS code designations are governed by Subpart C of this part. Proposed Sec. 134.701 outlines the scope of the rules under this subpart. Sections 134.702 and 134.703 describe who may appeal a protest determination and when that person must file an appeal. Under Sec. 134.702, the protested concern, the protestor, or the contracting officer responsible for the procurement affected by the protest determination may file an appeal with OHA. Section 134.703 allows for an appeal petition to be made within 10 business days after the appellant receives the protest determination. Section 134.704 describes the effects that the appeal will have on the procurement at issue. If OHA determines that a concern is ineligible then the contracting officer may terminate the contract. Sections 134.705, 134.706 and 134.707 set out the requirements for an appeal petition, what the service and filing requirements are and when the D/GC transmits the protest file and to whom. The standard of review is found in Sec. 134.707. The standard is whether the D/GC's determination was based on clear error of fact or law. Under Sec. 134.709 the Judge is able to dismiss an appeal if it is untimely filed or has already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction over such matters. Section 134.710 sets out the requirements of who can file a response to an appeal petition. Sections 134.711-712 discuss discovery and limitations on new evidence. No discovery is permitted and no new evidence will be allowed to be admitted. Sections 134.713 and 134.714 set out the timing for the appeal petition. Under Section 134.713 the record will close when the time to file a response to an appeal petition expires pursuant to 13 CFR 134.710. Under Sec. 134.714, the Judge must issue a decision within 15 business days after close of the record. Section 134.715 allows for the OHA Judge to reconsider an appeal decision within 20 calendar days after issuance of the written decision. Any party who has appeared in the proceeding, or SBA, can request reconsideration by filing with the Judge and serving a petition for reconsideration on all the parties to the appeal within 20 calendar days after service of the written decision. Compliance with Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a ``significant'' regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis is set forth below. Regulatory Impact Analysis 1. Necessity of Regulation This regulatory action implements section 8(m) of the Act, which was enacted as part of section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-554. Section 8(m) authorizes the creation of the set-aside procurement mechanism described in this regulation. Under this regulation contracting officers will be allowed to restrict competition to EDWOSBs or WOSBs in industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented and when the procuring agency has conducted an appropriate analysis of the agency's procurement history and made a determination that there is sufficient evidence of relevant discrimination in that industry by that agency. This proposed rule will establish the requirements and procedures necessary to administer these restricted competitions. 2. Alternative Approaches to Proposed Rule In developing this proposed rule, SBA considered the costs and benefits of the alternatives for certification of small business concerns that claim EDWOSB or WOSB status, particularly the alternatives provided by section 8(m) of the Act. Specifically, section 8(m)(2)(F) provides that in order to qualify as a WOSB or EDWOSB, a concern must either be certified by a Federal agency, a State government, or a national certifying entity approved by the Administrator, or, alternatively, must certify to the contracting officer that they are a small business concern owned and controlled by women. In light of this provision, SBA considered performing the certifications by requiring each concern to submit a formal application to SBA for a determination of its status. That approach would have entailed the electronic or paper submission of written documentation to support the concern's claim that it meets the eligibility criteria for being designated a WOSB or EDWOSB. SBA decided against utilizing this certification process as the method to establish WOSB or EDWOSB status primarily because of the paperwork burden and other costs that approach would impose on WOSBs. However, as an additional approach to self-certification, SBA is proposing to permit contracting activities to accept formal certification gained by WOSBs and EDWOSBs as a result of their participation in Federal small business programs. This may be accomplished by designating as WOSB or EDWOSB-certified all those concerns that at the time of procurement: (1) Were SBA certified as 8(a) BD or SDB women-owned concerns in good standing; (2) held a current certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) from a certifying entity of a Department of Transportation grant recipient; or (3) were certified by an SBA-approved certifier. SBA has rejected them as primary methods for WOSB or EDWOSB certification in favor of a self-certification process. In the event of a protest SBA will recognize these certifications as evidence of a concern's [[Page 73292]] representation in ORCA that it is a qualified EDWOSB or WOSB. The standards for meeting this requirement are discussed in more detail in the body of this proposed regulation. SBA believes that the proposed self-certification process would be the most beneficial and cost-effective approach for the small business concerns because they will not have to submit formal applications to SBA to become eligible for restricted competition for WOSB and EDWOSB procurements. As proposed, the self-certification process is similar to the one that is used in other existing SBA set-aside programs. For example, the SBA programs for small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses permit those concerns to self-represent their size and socio-economic status when bidding on Federal contracts. The set-aside program for small businesses has worked well for decades. The set-aside program for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, while more recent, is also working well. Both of these set- aside programs are credible because they are supported by robust protest procedures. In other words, when an interested party such as an unsuccessful offeror believes that the apparent successful bidder or offeror on a Federal contract is not a small business, or not a service-disabled veteran-owned small business in the case of a set- aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, there is a formal process by which the interested party may submit a protest to SBA. This action halts the procurement until SBA investigates the allegations and reaches a decision. The subject proposed rule adopts the same approach, whereby interested parties may submit protests to SBA. The self-certification alternative will leverage two existing Federal electronic databases, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and the On-line Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), to facilitate the self-certification process. The approach is also consistent with SBA's statutory responsibilities under section 8(m) of the Act to establish certification standards and procedures. 3. What Are the Potential Benefits and Costs of This Regulatory Action? This rule directs benefits to EDWOSBs and WOSBs at a cost to concerns ineligible for the program and at some cost to the taxpayer through restrictions on competition, resulting in increased contract prices and decreased selection of products and services and new administrative costs of managing a Federal procurement set-aside program and the eligibility determination processes. Generally, the cost of transferring a contract from one business to another has minimal cost to society as a whole, but the loss of efficiency through restrictions in contracting has broader impacts that depend highly on the use of this program by contracting officers and the availability of competition among EDWOSBs and WOSBs. The most significant effect of this rule will be the transfer of contract dollars to EDWOSBs and WOSBs through the contracting officers' ability to restrict competition to EDWOSBs or WOSBs in industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented and substantially underrepresented and where certain threshold determinations are made by an agency. It is difficult to estimate the total number of potential beneficiaries or losers that will be eligible for Federal small business assistance as a result of this proposed rule. Based on the four NAICS codes (9281--National Security and International Affairs, 3328--Coating, Engraving, Heat Treating, and Allied Activities, 3371--Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing, and 4412--Other Motor Vehicle Dealers) identified in the RAND study, utilizing the Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) engine in CCR, 1209 women-owned small businesses were identified as recipients of Federal contracts in these 4 NAICS codes. It is expected that the number of awards to EDWOSBs and WOSBs will increase within these NAICS codes, should an agency restrict competition to only those groups in accordance with the procedures in this proposed rule. This estimate is based on an analysis of EDWOSB and WOSB participation in Federal contracting and the industry market share identified in the RAND report. In addition, one purpose of this program is to draw additional EDWOSBs and WOSBs into Federal procurement through restricted competition in the identified NAICS codes. However, any such economic incentive to enter Federal procurement may represent a cost to the taxpayer and society in the form of higher contract prices or fewer choices of quality. From the point of view of Federal procurement policy, as set by statute, Federal agencies may benefit from the increased availability of EDWOSBs and WOSBs in order to meet their statutory goals. However, in the short term, restriction of competition raises the cost of contracts and limits the selection of products available. As more EDWOSBs and WOSBs enter into the Federal arena, competition will likely increase, lowering the cost of the program and ultimately eliminating underrepresentation within those industries and the industry's participation in the program. In the long run, even with the elimination of underrepresentation in all industries, small business opportunities may be enhanced by the experience gained in Federal contracting through set-asides under this program, but taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of small businesses inexperienced in Federal contracting learning through limited competition set-asides. Further, large businesses serving the Federal government as prime contractors with small business subcontracting goals may also benefit from a larger pool of WOSBs by enabling them to better achieve their subcontracting goals and at lower prices. No estimate of cost savings from these contracting decisions can be made since data are not available to directly measure price or competitive trends on Federal contracts. To the extent that additional firms become active in Government programs, this may entail some additional administrative costs to the Federal Government associated with additional bidders for Federal small business procurement programs, additional firms seeking SBA guaranteed lending programs, and additional firms eligible for enrollment in SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search data base. Among businesses in this group seeking SBA assistance, there will be some additional costs associated with compliance and verification associated with certification of small business status and protests of small business status. However, these activities are likely to generate minimal incremental costs since mechanisms are currently in place to handle these administrative requirements. In addition, SBA attempted to calculate the cost to agencies when determining if there has been discrimination against WOSBs or EDWOSBs in the designated industry groups. However, SBA does not have access to agency presolicitation market research or any other agency maintained data that would reveal the extent of an agency's efforts to consider or reject out-of-hand the offers of WOSBs or EDWOSBs in a post-contract award environment. SBA can however, state that the Government-wide study conducted by the Rand Corporation to determine industries where WOSBs were underrepresented cost approximately $250,000.00. SBA estimates that similar studies conducted by agencies in this regard should not exceed that figure, if they must seek outside assistance to make their determinations. [[Page 73293]] This regulatory action promotes the Administration's objectives. One of SBA's goals in support of the Administration's objectives is to help individual small businesses succeed through fair and equitable access to capital and credit, government contracts, and management and technical assistance. Implementation of this proposed rule ensures that the intended beneficiaries have access to small business programs designed to assist them. This proposed rule does not interfere with state, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their government functions. In a few instances, state and local governments have voluntarily adopted SBA's regulations for their programs to eliminate the need to establish an administrative mechanism for developing their own size standards. Executive Order 12988 This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sec. Sec. 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect. Executive Order 13132 This rule does not have federalism implications as defined in the Executive Order. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. In the event of a protest, this proposed rule will allow a WOSB concern to substantiate its self-certifications by submitting an existing certification from an SBA approved State Government certifier. In order for SBA to accept a State's certification, the State must show that its certification process meets certain standards, including a showing that its process is based on the same criteria for WOSB or EDWOSB eligibility, as set forth in this regulation. However, this proposed rule will not mandate how the States conduct their certification processes, and as such the rule will not have a direct effect on the States. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, SBA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The certification process described in Subpart C, Sec. Sec. 127.300 to 127.305, is not an information collection. In general, certifications are not subject to the PRA notice and review requirements unless such certifications are used as a substitute for collecting information. The proposed self- certification process does not require any concern seeking to benefit from Federal contracting opportunities designated for WOSBs or EDWOSBs to submit or maintain any information. Rather, the concerns will use the existing electronic contracting system (i.e., ORCA) to confirm the following statements, under penalty of perjury: (1) The concern is certified as a EDWOSB or WOSB by a certifying entity approved by SBA and there have been no changes in its circumstances affecting its eligibility since certification; or (2) The concern meets each of the applicable individual eligibility requirements described in subpart B, including that: (i) It is a small business concern under the size standard assigned to the particular procurement; (ii) It is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens, or it is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens and are economically disadvantaged; and (iii) Neither SBA, in connection with an examination or protest, nor an SBA-approved certifier has issued a decision currently in effect finding that it does not qualify as a EDWOSB or WOSB. The process for the annual recertification is similar in nature and as such also does not require any reporting or recordkeeping. The only occasion on which concerns would have to submit information to SBA would be in the context of a protest or examination, when SBA might request that a particular WOSB submit documentation to substantiate its claim. This proposed rule does not require the WOSBs to maintain any specific information for this purpose. Further, any request for substantiation would not be standardized but rather would be specific to a WOSB's particular status, and as such are also not subject to the PRA. Nonetheless, SBA would welcome any comments on the process as described. Regulatory Flexibility Act SBA has determined that this proposed rule establishing a set-aside mechanism for WOSBs may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Accordingly, SBA has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) addressing the impact of this Rule in accordance with section 603, title 5, of the United States Code. The IRFA examines the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the kind and number of small entities that may be affected; the projected recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements; whether there are any Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and whether there are any significant alternatives to the proposed rule. 1. What are the Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule? SBA is establishing procedures whereby Federal procuring agencies may use restricted competition in industries where WOSBs are underrepresented in Federal procurement and when certain other conditions are met. The purpose of the proposed rule is to create an initial framework and infrastructure for implementing these new procedures, thereby providing a tool for Federal agencies to increase Federal contracting to WOSBs. The objective of this proposed rule is to increase the amount of Federal contract dollars awarded to WOSBs in industries where they are currently underutilized. These procedures will assist Federal agencies in achieving the Federal Government's goal of awarding five percent of Federal contract dollars to WOSBs, as provided in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. Federal procurement was just over $340 billion in FY 2006, the most recent fiscal year for which procurement data are available, and only $11.6 billion, or barely more than 3.4 percent, was awarded to WOSBs. 2. What is the Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule? SBA is proposing this regulation pursuant to section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(m), which authorizes the creation and implementation of a new mechanism for Federal contracting with WOSBs. 3. What is SBA's Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule will Apply? The RFA directs agencies to provide a description, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small business concerns that may be affected by the rule. This proposed rule will ultimately establish in the Federal [[Page 73294]] Acquisition Regulation (FAR) a new procurement mechanism to benefit WOSBs. Therefore, WOSBs that compete for Federal contracts are the specific group of small business concerns most directly affected by this rule. The rule may also affect other small businesses to the extent that small businesses not owned and controlled by women may be excluded from competing for certain Federal contracting opportunities. A survey of WOSBs in the CCR DSBS on September 19, 2007, identified a total of 1,208 WOSBs in the four industries identified by the RAND Corporation as those in which WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented. The actual number of WOSBs in these industries may be less than 1,208 since some firms may have appeared under more than one industry search, and there is no simple method of determining how many firms, if any, appeared more than once. In addition, many otherwise-qualified EDWOSBs and WOSBs will not find it advantageous to pursue set-asides for WOSBs, since the industries in which they do business are not one of the four industries that RAND has identified in its study that may eventually be eligible for set-asides. However, the actual number may be more if SBA approves additional industries for set-aside procurements under these procedures. This proposed rule may also have a substantially adverse impact on small businesses other than WOSBs that are excluded from competition for Federal contracts that are set aside exclusively for WOSBs. Non- WOSB small businesses in the four designated industries identified in the Rand Corporation study may lose contracting opportunities when contracts are re-competed or may be excluded from opportunities from which they would have otherwise benefited. This would be particularly harmful for non-WOSBs in these industries that derive a significant portion of their business from Federal contracting. The number of small businesses that would be excluded under the proposed determination of eligible industries or future such determinations is not known at this time, but it could be a substantial number. SBA is seeking public comment on the adverse effects of this program on non-WOSB small business concerns through this proposed rule. Additional contracting opportunities identified by Federal agencies as candidates to set aside for WOSBs will come from new contracting requirements and contracts currently performed by small and large businesses. At this time, SBA cannot accurately predict how the existing distribution of contracts by business type may change by this rule. However, SBA does not expect many, if any, contracts awarded through the 8(a), HUBZone, or SDVOSB Programs ($22.6 billion in FY 2006) to be re-competed as WOSB or EDWOSB set-aside contracts because those programs also support other socioeconomic goals that agencies strive to achieve through their contracting activities. 4. What are the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, Paperwork Reduction Act and Other Compliance Requirements? WOSBs are not required to be certified as such in order to contract with the Federal Government. This will still be true if the proposed rule is adopted. However, for a WOSB to be eligible for Federal contracts restricted to WOSBs or EDWOSBs, it will have to self-certify its status as a WOSB. This requirement ensures that participation in certain contracting opportunities is restricted to qualified WOSBs according to the terms of section 8(m) of the Act and the criteria in this proposed rule. Similar eligibility requirements apply to WOSBs desiring to participate in SBA's 8(a) or SDB programs or the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Further, SBA proposes to accept for WOSB-restricted contracts, those WOSBs currently certified for those programs. However, some WOSBs may choose to participate in procurements restricted for competition to WOSBs or EDWOSBs and may decide to pursue formal certification under one of the programs referred to in the previous paragraph to: (1) Obtain the additional benefits afforded to them by those Federal programs; and (2) to use that formal certification as an assurance that they are qualified for participation in procurements restricted to WOSBs and EDWOSBs. This formal certification requirement will have associated costs, i.e., labor costs, for participating WOSBs. At a minimum, potential participants must complete specific forms and provide adequate documentation of their qualifications. Documents may include what a business would normally have on hand, e.g., ownership records, tax records, etc. Firms applying for certification will have to locate copy and submit supporting documents. SBA estimates that the cost to complete these activities based on similar requirements for other SBA programs, will be approximately $150.00 per hour. After the tax and other business papers for documentation are assembled, completing the process application is estimated to take about 2.5 hours. An estimated 2,000 firms per year are expected to apply using this process and thus, the total cost is estimated to be $750,000 per year. The paperwork burden on the WOSB applying for certification is estimated from SBA's experience with SDB and 8(a) applications that require similar documentation to support the claim of economic disadvantage and 51 percent ownership and control of the firm. As noted earlier in this rule, WOSBs and EDWOSBs will not be required to submit any information to SBA to participate in restricted competition, or to maintain any additional information as a result of this rule. Therefore, SBA does not anticipate any reporting or recordkeeping burden directly associated with this proposed rule. Any costs associated with the concerns use of CCR or ORCA to complete their self-certifications would be de minimis. 5. What Relevant Federal Rules May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Rule? SBA has not identified any relevant Federal rules currently in effect that duplicate or conflict with this rule. The restricted- competition feature of the set-aside mechanism for WOSBs will be an addition to the existing preference programs that agencies currently administer, such as sm