GAO: Monitoring and Oversight of Tribal 8(a) Firms Need Attention

Here is the report.

An excerpt:

Federal dollars obligated to tribal 8(a) firms grew from $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $5.5 billion in 2010, a greater percentage increase than non-tribal 8(a) obligations (160 percent versus 45 percent). Obligations to 8(a) firms owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) represented the majority of tribal obligationsevery year during the period, rising to $4.7 billion in 2010. While tribal 8(a) firms comprised 6.2 percent of total 8(a) firms, their obligations accounted for almost a third of total 8(a) obligations in fiscal year 2010. Over the 6 years, the percentage of competitively awarded obligations to tribal 8(a) firms rose; however, solesource contracts remained the primary source of growth, representing at least 75 percent of all tribal 8(a) obligations in a given year.

Consistent with GAO’s 2006 review of ANC 8(a) contracting, contracting officials said that awarding contracts to tribal firms under the 8(a) program allows officials to award sole-source contracts for any value quickly, easily, and legally, and helps agencies meet their small business goals. However, the officials added that the program offices’ push for awarding follow-on contracts to the same firm also plays a role. GAO’s review of noncompetitive tribal 8(a) contracts shows the methods used to determine price reasonableness in a sole-source environment. In some cases, when agencies moved away from sole-source tribal 8(a) contracts toward competition, agency officials estimated savings as a result.

To ensure that 8(a) firms do not pass along the benefits of their contracts to their subcontractors, regulations limit the amount of work that can be performed by the subcontractors. Of the 87 contracts in GAO’s review, 71 had subcontractors. GAO found that required monitoring of limitations on subcontracting by procuring agencies was not routinely occurring. Similar to what GAO reported in 2006, some contracting officers do not understand that ensuring compliance is their responsibility under partnership agreements with SBA, and the regulations do not make this clear. Further, agency officials did not know how to monitor subcontracting limitations, particularly for indefinite-quantity contracts, as the data are not readily available. Not monitoring the limits on subcontracting can pose a major risk that an improper amount of work is being done by large firms.

In March 2011, SBA revised 8(a) regulations to clarify program rules, correct misinterpretations, and address program issues. Although a positive step, SBA will have difficulty enforcing new regulations pertaining to tribal 8(a) follow-on contracts and joint ventures given the information currently available. SBA told GAO it is currently in the process of developing the requirements for a new 8(a) tracking database. Further, the new regulations do not address some issues GAO has previously raised, such as ANC 8(a) firms under the same parent corporation generating a majority of revenue in the same line of business. SBA regulations do not allow a tribal organization to have more than one 8(a) subsidiary perform most of its work under the same primary business line. GAO also discusses practices that highlight how some tribal 8(a) firms operate, in effect, as large businesses because of their parent corporation’s backing and interconnectedness with sister subsidiaries. SBA has not reviewed these practices to determine whether they are congruent with the business development purpose of the 8(a) program.

SCOTUSblog: Ute Mountain Ute v. Padilla a Petition to Watch

Here (along with briefs).

Federal Court Holds Salt River Tribal Court Has No Jurisdiction over Frito-Lay in Dispute with Tribal Member

Here are the materials in Frito-Lay v. Stover (D. Ariz.):

DCT Decision in Frito-Lay v Stover

Frito-Lay Motion for Summary J

Stover Opposition to Frito-Lay Motio

Frito-Lay Reply

Stover Motion to Dismiss

Tribal Motion to Dismiss

Oneida Response Brief in Wisconsin SCT Case (Kroner)

Here:

OSGC response brief

The opening brief is here. Lower court materials here.

Proposed Casino Would Be South Carolina’s First

An excerpt from The Island Packet:

The gambling resort would be within Hilton Head Lakes, a residential development on U.S. 278 — 18 miles from Hilton Head Island and three miles from Exit 8 on I-95. The United Keetoowa Band of the Cherokee Indians in Tahlequah, Okla., would own it.

Jasper County and city of Hardeeville councils passed resolutions endorsing the project Thursday and asked the state and federal government for support. The local leaders hailed it as a boon to Lowcountry tourism that could help cure chronic unemployment.

and

Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, before a tribe can request that “off-reservation” land be taken into trust by the U.S. government for gaming purposes, the bureau must determine that doing so is in the tribe’s best interest and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The state’s governor must also agree.

“The governor has no intention of signing any memorandum of understanding that would enable casino gambling,” said Rob Godfrey, a spokesman for the first-term Republican.

A CVSG for Malaterre v. Amerind?

The Malaterre v. Amerind cert petition is scheduled for this Friday’s Supreme Court Conference. Despite being a SCOTUSblog petition to watch, it really isn’t certworthy (though pretty much any tribal immunity-related petition attracts attention).

Might Malaterre be a candidate for CVSG, assuming it isn’t simply denied? Perhaps, for two reasons. First, the Court asked the OSG five times in the last couple Terms for the government’s views in Indian law cases. Second, the immunity question may depend on the Court’s interpretation and analysis of Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act.

Suit for Royalties in Southern Ute Well Dismissed under Rule 19

Here are the materials in Three Stars Prod. Co. v. BP America (D. Colo.):

DCT Order Dismissing under Rule 19

BP America Rule 19 Motion

Three Stars Response

BP Reply

Updated Briefing in Charles Mix County’s Constitutional Challenge to IRA Section 5

We posted the opening brief here. Here are the remaining briefs:

Interior Appellee Brief

Charles Mix County Reply Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Federal Court Remands Colorado Claims against Western Sky Financial (Indian Country Payday Lenders) to State Court

Here are the materials in State of Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Western Sky Financial L.L.C. (D. Colo.):

Colorado State Court Complaint

Western Sky Motion to Dismiss

Colorado Motion to Remand

DCT Order Remanding Colorado Complaint

Treasury Recommends Repeal of Essential Government Function Test for Tribal Economic Development Bonds

Here:

ReportToCongress-TribalEconomicDevelopmentBonds-FINAL121911