This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-151 
entitled 'Contract Management: Protégés Value DOD's Mentor-Protégé 
Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement' which was 
released on January 31, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

January 2007: 

Contract Management: 

Protégés Value DOD's Mentor-Protégé Program, but Annual Reporting to 
Congress Needs Improvement: 

GAO-07-151: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-151, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Congress authorized the Mentor-Protégé Program to boost the 
participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and 
suppliers under Department of Defense (DOD) and other contracts. The 
program provides incentives to major defense contractors (mentors) to 
help small disadvantaged businesses (protégés) strengthen their ability 
to compete for contracts. GAO administered a Web-based survey to 
determine whether former protégés believe the program enhanced their 
business development; examined the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé 
Program Office’s annual reporting to Congress; determined whether DOD 
reported on the progress of former protégés and their contributions to 
small business goals; and, identified how program funds have been 
obligated and used. 

What GAO Found: 

Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to GAO’s questionnaire 
reported that the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and 
enhanced business development. Ninety-three percent of responding 
protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced, at least to some 
degree, their firms’ overall capabilities. While protégés also 
attributed increases in contracts and revenues as a result of their 
participation in the program, about one-quarter reported that the 
program had no impact on gaining new contracts or on increasing 
revenues. 

Figure: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of Figure] 

Although DOD’s annual reports to the Congress indicate the program has 
increased business opportunities, the accuracy of these reports is 
questionable, primarily because the data are not validated before the 
reports are submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits 
its annual report to Congress, based on mentor-prepared reports on 
protégé progress, but the Defense Contract Management Agency does not 
complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports until the 
following September. In addition, many of the validations are 
incomplete or not done at all. 

GAO could not measure the contribution of the Mentor-Protégé Program to 
the statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of DOD’s contracting 
dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. To do this, the progress of 
those protégés completing the program since the program’s inception 
would need to be identified. This data is not available. 

Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program’s 
funds, which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The 
mentors were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided 
to protégés either directly or indirectly. Defense Contract Management 
Agency reviews determined that the reimbursements received by mentors 
during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take a number of actions 
to better evaluate the performance of DOD’s Mentor-Protégé Program and 
to improve annual reporting on the program to the Congress. 

DOD concurred with GAO’s findings and recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-151]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Anne Calvaresi-Barr at 
(202) 512-4841 calvaresibarra@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Most Former Protégés Value Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Accuracy of Statutorily Required Annual Reporting Is Questionable: 

Requirement to Report Trends in Progress Made by Former Protégés Has 
Not Been Met: 

Mentor-Protégé Program Funds Reimburse Mentors, Protégés, and Cover 
Program Operational Costs: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Results Attributable to Mentoring: 

Mentor's Support Provided to Protégés: 

Level of Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Willingness to Recommend 
the Program to Others: 

Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness: 

Appendix IV: Composition of Responding Protégé Firms: 

Developmental Assistance Providers: 

North American Industry Classification System Codes: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Tables: 

Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Semi-
Annual Reports: 

Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006 
Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006 (Dollars in 
Millions): 

Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés: 

Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development Assistance 
to Protégés: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation: 

Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to the 
Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly 
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly Attributable 
to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to the 
Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certification Directly Attributable to 
the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly 
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support: 

Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support: 

Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the Mentor- 
Protégé Program: 

Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Provided a 
Valuable Experience: 

Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the Mentor- 
Protégé Program to Other Eligible Firms: 

Figure 13: Mentors' Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring: 

Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and Engineering 
or Technical Expertise: 

Abbreviations: 

CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integration: 
DCMA: Defense Contract Management Agency: 
DOD: Department of Defense: 
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System: 
SDB: Small Disadvantaged Business: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 31, 2007: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Warner: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skeleton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

Each year, the Department of Defense (DOD) obligates hundreds of 
billions of dollars in contracts for goods and services. To boost the 
participation of small disadvantaged businesses as subcontractors and 
suppliers under DOD and other federal and commercial contracts, 
Congress authorized a pilot Mentor-Protégé Program. The program, which 
was authorized in 1990[Footnote 1] and has been continually renewed, 
provides incentives for major defense contractors (mentors) to help 
small disadvantaged businesses (protégés) strengthen their ability to 
compete for defense and other federal contracts as well as commercial 
contracts. 

To ensure that the program is focused on a results-oriented approach to 
assessing program performance, Congress has required DOD to report 
annually on trends in the progress made in employment, revenues, and 
participation in DOD contracts of protégé firms and former protégé 
firms.[Footnote 2] Congress also required GAO to study the program's 
effectiveness.[Footnote 3] In responding to this mandate, we: 

* determined whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé Program 
enhanced their business development, 

* assessed the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual 
reporting to Congress, 

* determined if the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the 
progress of former protégés and how their progress helped DOD 
contribute to the statutory objective[Footnote 4] of awarding 5 percent 
of its contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses, and: 

* identified how Mentor-Protégé Program funds have been obligated and 
used. 

In performing our work, we administered a Web-based survey to protégés 
that completed or left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, 
obtaining a 63 percent response rate. We reviewed mentor-prepared semi- 
annual reports, designed to quantify the progress made under active 
mentor-protégé agreements, and we examined the Defense Contract 
Management Agency's (DCMA) audit of those reports. In addition, we 
interviewed protégés, mentors, and Mentor-Protégé Program Office 
officials. We also obtained funding data from the Mentor-Protégé 
Program Office and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that 
costs incurred were reasonable. A complete statement of our methodology 
is in appendix I. We conducted our review from March 2006 to October 
2006, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Most of the 48 former protégés that responded to our survey reported 
that the Mentor-Protégé Program was a valuable experience and helped 
enhance their business development. About 87 percent of responding 
protégés reported that support from their mentors helped their business 
development and corporate infrastructure. About 84 percent stated that 
mentor support enhanced their engineering or technical expertise; one- 
fourth directly linked their participation in the program to their 
ability to meet International Organization for Standardization[Footnote 
5] quality standards; and over one-fifth responded they had received 
additional training and certifications, such as manufacturing process 
and control training or Capability Maturity Model Integration[Footnote 
6] certifications. Protégés also reported quantifiable business growth. 
For example, protégés collectively attributed 95 new contracts and 
about $131 million in increased revenue to their participation in the 
program. Further, about 63 percent reported an increase in employees. 
Despite the overall value protégés attributed to the program, about one-
quarter reported that the program had no impact on gaining new 
contracts or on increasing revenues. 

The accuracy of DOD's annual reports to the Congress is questionable, 
primarily because the data are not validated before the reports are 
submitted to Congress. Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual 
report to Congress, which is based on mentor-prepared reports on 
protégé progress, but DCMA does not complete its validation of the 
mentor-prepared reports until the following September. In addition, 
many of the validations are incomplete, and some mentor-prepared 
reports are not validated at all. In fiscal year 2004, for example, 40 
of the 183 active agreements were not reviewed at all, and 30 percent 
of the mentor-prepared reports did not have protégés' signatures and/or 
concurrence, as required to help corroborate data accuracy. If the data 
are flawed, the report could overstate or understate the success of the 
program. Yet, DOD does not know the extent of the validation problem or 
the overall effectiveness of the program because it does not summarize 
the audits in a meaningful comprehensive report to assess what the 
findings of the DOD audits mean, how the DOD findings affect the 
program's operation, or identify any corrective actions that need to be 
taken to make the program more effective. 

Until April 2006, DOD did not attempt to report on the trends of the 
progress made by protégés after they completed the program, as required 
by the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. Although 
Mentor-Protégé Program agreements signed since February 2000 required 
protégés to report their progress for 2 years after they complete the 
program, they were not doing so. According to protégés we interviewed, 
they either were unaware or had forgotten that they had agreed to this 
reporting requirement. Program office officials, when asked if they 
sent letters to former protégés as a reminder to comply with the 2-year 
reporting requirement, said the first such letter was sent in April 
2006, after GAO asked to see the progress reports. Even if the 2-year 
post-agreement reporting requirement had been met, we could not 
determine the contribution of the program to the statutory objective of 
awarding 5 percent of DOD's contracting dollars to small disadvantaged 
businesses. To make this determination would require knowing the 
progress of those protégés completing the program since the program's 
inception; this information is unavailable. 

Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program's 
funds, which totaled about $70 million, were obligated to mentors. The 
mentors were reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided 
to protégés, either directly or indirectly, by subcontracting to 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, 
and certain government-sponsored groups--procurement technical 
assistance centers and small business development centers. Funds were 
also obligated to reimburse protégés for their incidental costs, such 
as travel, and to cover the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's operational 
costs. DCMA reviews determined that the reimbursements received by 
mentors during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were reasonable. 

We are making recommendations to improve the accuracy and completeness 
of the Mentor-Protégé annual reports to Congress, which should help to 
better assist in evaluating the program. In written comments on a draft 
of this report, DOD concurred with our findings and recommendations, 
indicating that implementation of our recommendations is already 
underway. DOD stated that these actions are expected to fully address 
GAO's recommendations and are scheduled to be completed by the end of 
fiscal year 2007. 

Background: 

Congress established, as an objective for DOD, the goal of awarding 5 
percent of the amount contracted by DOD and subcontracted by DOD's 
prime contractors to small disadvantaged businesses. The 5 percent goal 
was not met in the years immediately following its establishment 
because, according to large DOD prime contractors, there were not 
enough qualified small disadvantaged businesses available as DOD 
subcontractors. 

Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1991 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot Mentor- 
Protégé Program. The purpose of the program is to provide incentives 
for major DOD contractors (mentors) to furnish small disadvantaged 
businesses (protégés[Footnote 7]) with assistance designed to enhance 
their capabilities and increase their participation as subcontractors 
and suppliers under DOD contracts, other federal government contracts, 
and commercial contracts. Since the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program was 
authorized, it has been continuously extended. With the passage of the 
Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD is now 
authorized to approve new agreements through September 30, 2010, and 
program performance is authorized through September 30, 2013. 

DOD's Office of Small Business Programs manages the Mentor-Protégé 
Program. Each year, as required by the fiscal year 2000 authorizing 
statute,[Footnote 8] DOD submits to Congress an annual report on the 
trends in the progress made in employment, revenues, and participation 
in DOD contracts by protégé firms. To satisfy the requirements of the 
fiscal year 2000 authorizing statute, DOD's implementing regulations 
require (1) mentors to report on the progress made under active mentor- 
protégé agreements, semi-annually, throughout the term of an agreement, 
and (2) protégés to report progress in each of the 2 years following 
the completion of their agreements. In addition, DCMA is to conduct 
annual performance reviews to verify whether the mentors and protégés 
accurately reported progress and to determine that all costs reimbursed 
to mentors were reasonably incurred in accordance with the statute and 
applicable regulations. 

From the program's inception through fiscal year 2006, Congress has 
appropriated $437.7 million to the program, and DOD has approved 910 
mentor-protégé agreements. Funding covers program operational costs and 
reimburses mentors for providing developmental assistance. Mentor- 
protégé agreements are usually limited to a 3-year period. At the end 
of July 2006, there were 149 active mentor-protégé agreements. 

This report is one of a series we have issued on the Mentor-Protégé 
Program. We reported on the Mentor-Protégé Program in 1992,[Footnote 9] 
1994,[Footnote 10] 1998,[Footnote 11] and 2001.[Footnote 12] In our 
first report, one of our recommendations was that DOD develop and 
implement adequate internal controls in the application and approval 
process and in the oversight of protégé development. In our subsequent 
reports, we found DOD did not have sufficient data to adequately assess 
the program's performance in meeting its objectives. Among other 
things, we recommended that DOD gather more complete information on 
program performance by strengthening performance reviews and seeking 
protégé feedback on the extent to which the program had resulted in 
additional contracting and subcontracting opportunities. DOD concurred 
with our recommendations to strengthen its data collection and 
performance reviews, but stated that asking protégés how the program 
has resulted in additional contracting and subcontracting would be an 
imposition to protégés. We disagreed because, within the context of 
statutory reporting requirements, DOD should remind protégés to report 
on how the program had resulted in contracting and subcontracting 
opportunities. 

Most Former Protégés Value Mentor-Protégé Program: 

To determine whether former protégés believe the Mentor-Protégé Program 
enhanced their business development, we administered a Web-based survey 
and received responses from 48 of the 76 protégés that completed or 
left the program during fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Ninety-three 
percent of protégés reported the Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced, at 
least to some degree, their firms' overall capabilities. About 87 
percent reported that support from their mentors helped their 
businesses' development, and about 84 percent stated that mentor 
support helped their engineering or technical expertise. As an example 
of specific development support, about 71 percent of protégés reported 
receiving help with their quality management programs, with one-fourth 
directly linking the assistance they received to their ability to meet 
International Organization for Standardization quality standards, which 
increased their business competitiveness. Over one-fifth responded that 
they had received additional training and certifications, such as 
manufacturing process and control training or Capability Maturity Model 
Integration certifications. Finally, nearly 98 percent of the protégés 
reported that they would recommend the program to other small 
businesses eligible to participate in the program. 

In terms of the level of satisfaction, our survey found about 71 
percent of protégés were at least generally satisfied with their 
experience, with reasons ranging from enhanced capabilities and 
heightened exposure in the marketplace, to quantifiable business 
growth. Nearly 80 percent of protégés reported that their mentors 
provided the anticipated type and level of mentoring. The overall 
results also indicate that the majority of responding protégés directly 
attributed some degree of business growth to their participation in the 
program. Measures of this growth include the number and dollar value of 
contracts received, overall revenues, new employee hiring, and new 
certifications. For example, protégés collectively attributed 95 new 
contracts and about $131 million in increased revenues, to their 
participation in the program. 

About 15 percent of the protégés reported dissatisfaction with their 
participation and about 21 percent responded that they did not receive 
the level of mentoring that they had anticipated. Reasons for 
dissatisfaction included a lack of mentor commitment to the program, 
mentor failure to meet the objectives of mentor-protégé agreements, and 
costs to the protégés that exceeded the return from participation. 
Furthermore, about 28 percent of protégés reported that their program 
participation did not produce increases in their contracts and nearly 
one-quarter reported no impact on revenues. 

Figure 1 illustrates the extent to which protégés attributed the 
enhancement of their overall capabilities as well as increases in 
contracts, dollar value of contracts, certifications, revenues, and 
additional employees to the Mentor-Protégé Program. 

Figure 1: Protégé Attribution of Outcomes to Program Participation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

Note: The percents are rounded and do not include responses of no basis 
to judge and not applicable. 

[End of figure] 

Appendixes II through IV provide detailed information on the results of 
our survey. 

Accuracy of Statutorily Required Annual Reporting Is Questionable: 

The accuracy of statutorily required annual reporting is questionable 
because DOD's annual performance reviews of mentor-protégé agreements, 
designed to verify the accuracy of progress made by protégés, are not 
completed until after DOD sends its annual report to Congress. 
Specifically, each March DOD submits its annual report to Congress. 
This report is based on mentor-prepared reports on protégé progress, 
but DOD does not complete its validation of the mentor-prepared reports 
until the following September. In addition, not all of the mentor- 
protégé agreements are reviewed; many of the reviews are incomplete; 
and many reports were not signed and/or concurred to by protégés. The 
protégé's signature and concurrence are required to provide 
corroborating support of the data submitted by mentors. Further, the 
overall message of the performance reviews is unknown because the 
reviews, which consist of over a hundred individual audits each year, 
are not summarized into a single report to assess what the findings of 
its audits mean, how these findings affect the program's operation, and 
to identify any corrective actions that need to be taken to make the 
program more effective. 

The Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress, 
dated March 31, 2006, shows the trends in the progress of protégé 
employment, revenues, and participation in DOD contracts during fiscal 
year 2005. The information in this report and previous annual reports 
sent to Congress was derived from mentor-prepared semi-annual reports, 
which had not been reviewed by DCMA. For example, the DCMA annual 
performance reviews of the fiscal year 2005 mentor-prepared semi-annual 
reports were not completed until September 2006, 6 months after the 
Mentor-Protégé Program Office reported to Congress. 

We analyzed the results of DCMA's review of the fiscal years 2003 and 
2004 reports, which are shown in table 1. In sum, not all of the mentor-
protégé agreements were reviewed, many reports were not signed and/or 
concurred to by protégés, and many of the reviews were incomplete. 

Table 1: GAO Analysis of DCMA Reviews of Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Semi-
Annual Reports: 

Areas of Analysis: Active agreements; 
FY 2003: 189; 
FY 2004: 183. 

Areas of Analysis: Active agreements with reports reviewed; 
FY 2003: 125; 
FY 2004: 143. 

Areas of Analysis: Active agreements not reviewed; 
FY 2003: 64 (34%); 
FY 2004: 40 (22%). 

Areas of Analysis: Reports without protégé signature and/or indication 
of concurrence or non-concurrence; 
FY 2003: 34 (27%); 
FY 2004: 43 (30%). 

Areas of Analysis: Reports reviewed without verification of all the 
metrics; 
FY 2003: 28 (22%); 
FY 2004: 21 (15%). 

Source: GAO analysis of DCMA reviews of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 semi- 
annual reports: 

[End of table] 

Requirement to Report Trends in Progress Made by Former Protégés Has 
Not Been Met: 

Although the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act 
established the requirement for DOD to report on the trends in the 
progress of former protégés for agreements entered into on or after 
October 1, 1999, the requirement has not been met. Pursuant to the Act, 
protégés are to report their progress in employment, revenues, and 
participation in DOD contracts in each of the 2 years following the 
completion of their agreements. The Mentor-Protégé Program agreement 
application template was revised in February 2000 to require protégés 
to sign a statement indicating their willingness to comply with the 
program's reporting requirements, including the 2-year post-agreement 
requirement. The Act also required DCMA to determine whether protégés 
are accurately reporting data during the 2-year post-agreement period. 
Accordingly, DCMA's implementing guidance states that if the data are 
either not provided or are not verifiable, the DCMA report should 
provide the reason why. 

Despite the Act and DCMA's guidance, the 2-year post-agreement- 
reporting requirement has not been met, and DCMA did not explain in its 
annual performance reviews that protégé annual reporting data had not 
been provided. 

The protégés we interviewed told us that after their agreement period, 
they either forgot that they had agreed to the reporting requirement or 
were not aware of the requirement from the beginning. DCMA officials 
acknowledged that the reporting shortfall was the result of DCMA not 
following its own policy. Finally, when we asked Mentor-Protégé Program 
office officials whether they sent letters to former protégés as a 
reminder to comply with the 2-year reporting requirement, they said 
that the first such letter was sent on April 17, 2006, after we first 
asked about compliance with the 2-year reporting requirement. Program 
Office officials advised us, in October 2006, that 48 percent of the 
protégés they attempted to contact[Footnote 13] responded to the 
reminder letter. 

Part of our requirement to review the Mentor-Protégé Program was to 
determine if the Mentor-Protégé Program office reports on the progress 
of former protégés and how their progress helps DOD contribute to the 
statutory objective of awarding 5 percent of its contracting dollars to 
small disadvantaged businesses. Even if the 2-year post-agreement 
reporting requirement had been met, we could not determine the 
contribution of the program to the statutory objective of awarding 5 
percent of DOD's contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses. 
To make this determination would require knowing the progress of those 
protégés completing the program since the program's inception; this 
information is not available. 

Mentor-Protégé Program Funds Reimburse Mentors, Protégés, and Cover 
Program Operational Costs: 

Over the past 3 years, the majority of the Mentor-Protégé Program's 
funds were obligated to mentors.[Footnote 14] The mentors were 
reimbursed for the developmental assistance they provided to protégés, 
either directly or indirectly, by subcontracting to Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and certain 
government-sponsored groups--procurement technical assistance centers 
and small business development centers. Funds were also obligated to 
reimburse protégés for their incidental costs, such as travel, and to 
cover the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's operational costs. The 
services are responsible for managing reimbursable mentor-protégé 
agreements and do so by either modifying existing contracts or awarding 
new ones. 

Table 2: Mentor-Protégé Program Fiscal Year 2004, 2005, and 2006 
Appropriations and Obligations as of October 12, 2006 (Dollars in 
Millions): 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $25.006; 
Obligated funds: Mentors: $18.155; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $1.357; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $1.206; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.190; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: 0; 
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.730; 
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $3.362; 
Obligated funds: Totals: $25.000; 
Un-Obligated Funds: $.006. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $19.325; 
Obligated funds: Mentors: $10.837; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $1.859; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $.934; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.169; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: 0; 
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.481; 
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $3.787; 
Obligated funds: Totals: $18.068; 
Un-Obligated Funds: $1.257. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Appropriation Received by Program Office[A]: $25.543; 
Obligated funds: Mentors: $15.250; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: HBCU[B]: $.251; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: MI[C]: $.479; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: PTAC[D]: $.042; 
Obligated funds: Mentors subcontracted to: SBDC[E]: $.078; 
Obligated funds: Incidental Protégé Fees: $.149; 
Obligated funds: MPP Office Operational Costs: $1.936; 
Obligated funds: Totals: $18.185; 
Un-Obligated Funds: $7.358. 

Source: Mentor-Protégé Program Office: 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

[A] Funds reflect the effect of DOD reprogramming actions. 

[B] HBCU--Historically Black Colleges and Universities are accredited 
institutions of higher education with the principal mission of 
educating African Americans. 

[C] MI--Minority institutions are accredited institutions of higher 
education whose enrollment of a single minority or a combination of 
minorities (American Indian; Alaskan Native; African American; not of 
Hispanic origin; Hispanic, including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, 
Cuban, and Central or South American origin; Pacific Islander, and/or 
other ethnic group underrepresented in science and engineering), 
exceeds 50 percent of the enrollment or 25 percent of the enrollment if 
of Hispanic origin. 

[D] PTAC--Procurement technical assistance centers provide assistance 
in marketing products and services to the federal, state, and local 
governments. The Defense Logistics Agency administers the DOD 
procurement technical assistance program. 

[E] SBDC--Small business development centers are administered by the 
SBA to assist small business owners by providing a wide variety of 
information and guidance in central and easily accessible branch 
locations. 

[End of table] 

As part of its performance reviews of Mentor-Protégé agreements, DCMA 
is responsible for determining whether the costs reimbursed to mentor 
firms were reasonable. For the agreements reviewed by DCMA for fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004, the costs claimed by mentors were determined to be 
reasonable. DCMA had not completed its review of the fiscal years 2005 
and 2006 agreements at the time of our review. 

Conclusions: 

The Mentor-Protégé Program has clearly been of value to the majority of 
protégés that responded to our survey. However, DOD is not measuring 
the impact of the program on participating and former protégé firms, as 
Congress intended. Until DOD does so, by obtaining and validating the 
data Congress requested to measure success, neither DOD nor Congress 
will have the information it needs to oversee the program. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better evaluate the success of the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program and to 
improve annual reporting to Congress, we recommend that the Secretary 
of Defense: 

* direct DCMA to ensure that all Mentor-Protégé agreements are audited 
in accordance with DOD regulations and DCMA guidance and that these 
audits are summarized into a single report so that the Mentor-Protégé 
Program Office and Congress have reliable data on whether the program 
is accomplishing its goals and to determine whether any corrective 
action is necessary, and: 

* direct DOD's Office of Small Business to submit its annual report to 
Congress only after the data in the report have been validated by DCMA 
and require that the annual report contain information on the progress 
of protégés for 2 years following their completion of the Mentor- 
Protégé Program. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 
findings and recommendations, stating that the implementation of a new 
DCMA guidebook and revised reporting processes will address the 
recommendations. DOD expects to complete the revised reporting 
processes by the end of fiscal year 2007. DOD also noted in its 
response that many of the recommendations regarding reporting 
requirements were already being addressed through restructuring and 
procedural changes that have been underway within DCMA. This is not an 
accurate depiction of DOD's actions. It was as a result of our work 
that the Small Business Office became aware of the reporting 
deficiencies. Only then did the Small Business Office identify actions 
to address these deficiencies. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested 
congressional committees. We will also make copies available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have questions about this report or need additional information, 
please contact me at (202) 512-6986 or calvaresi-barra@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 
be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this 
report were James Fuquay, Assistant Director; Greg Campbell, Daniel 
Hauser, Stewart Kaufman, Sean Merrill, Charlie Shivers, and Karen 
Thornton. 

Signed by: 

Ann Calvaresi-Barr: 
Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

In the absence of data to determine whether former protégés believe the 
Mentor-Protégé Program enhanced their business development and 
translated into growing their businesses, we designed and administered 
a Web-based survey. We pretested the survey with two protégé firms to 
determine whether (1) the questions were clear, (2) the terms used were 
precise, (3) the questions were unbiased, and (4) the survey did not 
place an undue burden on the respondents. Based on the pretests, we 
made changes to our final survey. In coordination with the Mentor- 
Protégé Program Office, we identified a universe of 79 protégés that 
had either completed or terminated Mentor-Protégé agreements during 
fiscal years 2004 and 2005. We subsequently determined that three 
protégés would not be included in our survey because two had active 
agreements and one had no contact information. We selected former 
protégé firms to reduce the potential for bias responses that could 
result from protégés with active agreements. Of the 76 eligible 
protégés that were sent the survey, 48 responded, representing a 
response rate of 63 percent. The survey consisted of open-ended and 
close-ended questions to characterize protégé firms' demographics as 
well as obtain information on their program participation experiences, 
the adequacy of mentoring, the results attributable to mentoring, and 
protégés' overall assessment of the program. We did not independently 
verify the data provided by the protégés. We supplemented the survey by 
interviewing officials from five protégé firms with active or recently 
completed agreements. These interviews were conducted to determine if 
current protégés had opinions of the program that were inconsistent 
with our survey findings. We also interviewed officials from four 
mentor firms to obtain their views on the value of their agreements 
with protégés. 

To assess the accuracy of the Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual 
reporting to Congress, we reviewed (1) the program's statutory 
reporting requirements, (2) DCMA mentor-protégé reporting regulations, 
(3) DCMA reviews of the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 mentor-prepared semi- 
annual reports, and (4) the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 
Mentor-Protégé Program Office's annual reports. We also held 
discussions with officials from the program office, DCMA, and the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force. 

To determine whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Office reports on the 
progress of former protégés, we reviewed its reports to Congress and 
held discussions with program office officials. We also interviewed 
protégés and mentors, asking them if they were aware of the protégés' 
post-agreement reporting requirement. 

Finally, we obtained DOD funding data for the Mentor-Protégé Program 
and reviewed the criteria established to ensure that program costs 
incurred were reasonable. We also reviewed the DCMA audits of those 
agreements that were reviewed by DCMA for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal 
year 2004. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Results Attributable to Mentoring: 

We asked protégé firms to respond to questions related to the business 
growth and whether that growth was attributable to their participation 
in the Mentor-Protégé Program. The questions addressed increases in the 
number of contracts, revenue increases, expanding numbers of employees, 
and additional business certifications. The overall results indicate 
that the majority of responding protégés directly attributed some 
degree of business growth to their participation in the program for all 
of the topics discussed above. 

The following bar graphs illustrate how protégés attributed increases 
in contracts, dollar value of contracts, revenues, employees, 
certifications, and enhancement of overall capabilities to their 
participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program. The graphs represent the 
responses of all 48 protégés responding to our survey. The narrative 
accompanying each graph represents the responses of the subset of the 
protégés that elected to attribute specific values to each metric. 

Figure 2: Extent of Increase in Contracts Directly Attributable to the 
Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The actual number of increased contracts reported ranged from 1 to 20 
contracts, with an average number of contracts of nearly 2, a median of 
2, and a mode of 1 contract, among 26 protégés that reported specific 
contract number increases. 

Figure 3: Extent of Increase in Contract Dollar Value Directly 
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The actual increase in contract dollar value reported ranged from 
$100,000 to $20 million, with an average dollar value over $750,000, a 
median increase of $530,000, and a mode increase of $500,000, among 18 
protégés that reported specific increases in contract dollar value. 

Figure 4: Extent of Overall Increase in Revenue Directly Attributable 
to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The overall increase in revenue reported ranged from $25,000 to $75 
million, with an average revenue increase of over $5.2 million, a 
median increase of $1 million, and a mode increase of $1.5 million, 
among 25 protégés that reported specific increases in overall revenue. 

Figure 5: Extent of Increase in Employees Directly Attributable to the 
Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The extent of increase in employees reported ranged from 1 to 500 
employees, with an average increase of 44 employees, a median increase 
of 17 employees, and a mode increase of 1 employee, among 23 protégés 
that reported specific increases in employees. 

Figure 6: Extent of Increase in Certifications Directly Attributable to 
the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The extent of increase in the number of certifications reported ranged 
from 1 to 60 certifications, with an average increase of 5 
certifications, a median increase of 1 certification, and a mode 
increase of 1 certification, among 27 protégés that reported specific 
increases in certifications. 

Figure 7: Extent of Enhancement of Overall Capabilities Directly 
Attributable to the Mentor-Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

The vast majority of protégés reported that some degree of enhancement 
of overall capabilities was attributable to their participation in the 
program, with 15 reporting the program provided enhancements to a great 
or very great extent. 

Mentor's Support Provided to Protégés: 

The figures below portray the types of support that protégés received 
through participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program. Figure 8 shows the 
different types of business management and corporate infrastructure 
support and the number of protégés reporting support for each type. 
Figure 9 shows the different types of engineering or technical support 
and the number of protégés receiving support for each type. 

Figure 8: Business Management/Corporate Infrastructure Support: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: Engineering or Technical Support: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

Level of Satisfaction, Perceived Value, and Willingness to Recommend 
the Program to Others: 

To determine former protégés' overall assessment of the Mentor-Protégé 
Program, we asked (1) how satisfied or dissatisfied participants were 
with the program; (2) whether the Mentor-Protégé experience was 
valuable (regardless of whether participants realized an increase in 
contracts and/or revenues); and (3) if they would recommend 
participation in the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program to other eligible small 
firms. The following bar graphs present how the protégés responded to 
these questions. 

Figure 10: Level of Satisfaction with Participation in the Mentor- 
Protégé Program: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Response to Whether the Mentor-Protégé Program Provided a 
Valuable Experience: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Response to Whether Protégés Would Recommend the Mentor- 
Protégé Program to Other Eligible Firms: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Mentoring Completion, Adequacy, and Helpfulness: 

Of the 48 protégés that responded to the survey, 42, or about 88 
percent, completed the agreement they signed with their mentors. For 
the six protégés that terminated their agreement before it was 
scheduled to end, two reported their agreements were terminated early 
because their companies no longer qualified for the program and four 
reported that they chose to end their participation in the program. For 
the two agreements that ended because of a change in their eligibility, 
one reported that it grew out of its small business status, and the 
other reported that it was acquired by a publicly traded large 
business. For the four protégés that chose to terminate their 
agreements, the reported reasons for their decision included high cost 
both in resources and money, the program's paperwork burden, and a lack 
of commitment from their mentor. 

Of the protégés that responded to questions regarding their mentors' 
ability to provide the anticipated type and level of mentoring, about 
80 percent reported that their mentors provided the anticipated type 
and level or mentoring. Figure 13 shows the specific reporting results. 

Figure 13: Mentors' Ability to Provide Anticipated Mentoring: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

Note: "Not Sure" responses are not included. 

[End of figure] 

To address the adequacy of mentoring specifically related to business 
development and engineering or technical expertise, we asked protégés 
to provide responses on their program experiences with both. Their 
responses are depicted in Figure 14. Most reported the mentoring they 
received in both areas was helpful to some degree. However, 6 protégés, 
or nearly 13 percent, reported that the business development mentoring 
they received was not helpful, and 7 protégés, almost 16 percent, 
reported that mentoring related to engineering or technical expertise 
was not helpful. 

Figure 14: Mentor Helpfulness with Business Development and Engineering 
or Technical Expertise: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Protégé questionnaire responses. 

Note: Numbers include respondents providing actual responses, but do 
not include "Not Applicable" or "Not Sure" responses. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Composition of Responding Protégé Firms: 

Through analysis of the responses from the 48 protégé firms that 
completed our survey, we were able to identify basic demographic 
information for our respondents. For example, over 70 percent of 
protégés reported having small and disadvantaged business status, and 
just over 35 percent reported being women-owned small businesses. Table 
3 depicts the socioeconomic categories reported by protégés. 

Table 3: Socioeconomic Categories Reported by Protégés: 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: Small disadvantaged business (SDB); 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 70.8%. 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: SDB owned and controlled by an Indian 
Tribe; 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 2.1%. 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: Woman-owned small business; 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 35.4%. 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: HUBZone small business; 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 10.4%. 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: Service-disabled veteran-owned small 
business; 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 4.2%. 

Reported Socioeconomic Category: Other[A]; 
Percentage Reporting Socioeconomic Category: 10.4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

[A] Other responses were specified by respondents and included minority-
owned business, veteran-owned business, former 8(a) business, small 
business, and recently acquired by large business. 

Notes: No Protégés reported being SDB owned and controlled by a Native 
Hawaiian Organization or an Entity Employing the Severely Disabled. 

Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and because 
respondents could answer with more than one response. 

[End of table] 

The year that each responding protégé firm was established ranged from 
1957 to 2001, with about 85 percent having been established within the 
last 25 years and 60 percent opening for business between 1990 and 
2001. In terms of business size, as many as 900 employees were reported 
by protégés, with an average of 166 employees and a median of 76 
employees. For gross revenue, nearly 45 percent reported receiving more 
than $10 million in 2005 and about 85 percent earned at least $1 
million. Protégés also reported that their percentage of current 
business with DOD averaged almost 54 percent. The median was even 
higher, at 65 percent of their total. Additionally, about 48 percent of 
the protégé firms reported that they are currently working as a 
subcontractor for their former mentor firm. 

Developmental Assistance Providers: 

We also asked protégés whether they received any of their developmental 
assistance from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority 
institutions, procurement technical assistance centers, and small 
business development centers. The results are shown in table 4. 

Table 4: Distribution of Institutions Providing Development Assistance 
to Protégés: 

Development assistance institution: Historically Black Colleges or 
Universities; 
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 47.8%. 

Development assistance institution: Minority institutions; 
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 10.0%. 

Development assistance institution: Procurement technical assistance 
centers; 
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 19.5%. 

Development assistance institution: Small business development centers; 
Percentage of respondents receiving assistance from provider[A]: 23.8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses. 

[A] Percentages adjusted to only reflect respondents that were sure of 
their assistance providers. 

Note: Percents shown add to more than 100 percent due to rounding and 
because respondents could answer with more than one response. 

[End of table] 

North American Industry Classification System Codes: 

We asked protégés for their North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes. In total, 39 of 48 survey respondents provided 47 
different NAICS codes that represent their businesses. It is not 
unusual for a firm to have more than one NAICS code. Below are the code 
descriptions reported that had at least four responding protégés. The 
number beside each code description is the number of protégés reporting 
the code description. 

* Engineering services--14: 

* Computer systems design services--11: 

* Custom computer programming services--10: 

* Other computer related services--10: 

* Facilities support services--9: 

* Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life 
sciences--8: 

* Computer facilities management services--7: 

* Other management consulting services--5: 

* Administrative management and general management consulting services-
-4: 

* Remediation services--4: 

* Environmental consulting services--4: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Acquisition, Technology, And Logistics: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

Jan 10 2007: 

Ms. Ann Calvaresi-Barr: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 "G" Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Calvaresi-Ban: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, `Contract Management: Protege's Value DoD's Mentor-Protégé 
Program, but Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement (GAO Code 
120530/GAO-07-151), dated December 7, 2006. 

Although the Department concurs with the GAO findings, many of the 
recommendations regarding reporting requirements were already being 
addressed through restructuring and procedure changes within the 
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) supported by the Department 
of Defense Small Business Programs Office. The Department appreciates 
the opportunity to comment on the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by:  

Linda B. Oliver: 
Acting Director: 
Small Business Programs Office: 

Enclosure: 
As stated: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated December 7, 2006 GAO Code 120530/GAO-07-151: 

"Contract Management: Protege's Value DoD's Mentor Protégé Program, but 
Annual Reporting to Congress Needs Improvement" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to insure that all 
Mentor-Protégé agreements are audited in accordance with DoD 
regulations and DCMA guidance and that these audits are summarized into 
a single report so that the Mentor-Protégé Program Office and Congress 
have reliable data on whether the program is accomplishing its goals 
and to determine whether any corrective action is necessary. 

DOD Response: Concur. Although the Department and DCMA (Defense 
Contract Management Agency) concur with the GAO report, there is 
additional information that was not addressed or referenced in the 
report, which addressed conditions for 2003 and 2004. At that time, 
responsibilities for the Mentor-Protégé Program were dispersed 
throughout DCMA, which was at the time of the audit being restructured 
to establish a separate DCMA Mentor-Protégé Division (DCMAC-CP) with 
personnel dedicated to the Mentor-Protégé Program working closely with 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services 
to effect program improvement. The Mentor-Protégé Division Concept of 
Operations and revised DCMA guidebook, Mentor-Protégé Program for Small 
Business (OSD), were provided to GAO. 

More specifically, annual Mentor-Protégé Agreement Performance Reviews 
will now be completed three weeks prior to funding decision dates. An 
Executive Summary will be prepared 45 days after the end of each fiscal 
year to include: a summary of all reviews conducted, comments on mentor 
performance, return on investment, percent of performance improvement 
and milestone achievement. The Executive Summary will be prepared for 
each of the military services with a consolidated report provided to 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Small Business Programs Office. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct DoD's Office of Small Business to submit its annual report to 
Congress only after the data in the report have been validated by DCMA 
and require that the annual report contain information on the progress 
of Protégés for two years following their completion of the Mentor- 
Protégé Program. 

DOD Response: Concur. Under the revised DCMA Mentor-Protégé Program 
procedures, a Post Agreement Workload has been established and as 
agreements are completed, they are placed in a follow-up status. A 
specific reporting format has been developed and will be sent to the 
Protégé for each of the two years following completion of the 
agreement. It will not be required of those Protégés who enter into 
another agreement with the same or a new Mentor since they will be 
required to report under that agreement. 

It is anticipated that the implementation of the new guidebook and 
revised reporting processes will address the GAO findings and 
recommendations. The changeover to the new formats and reporting 
requirements will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2007. 

[End of Section] 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. 
No. 101-510, § 831 (1990). 

[2] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 
No. 106-65, § 811(d) (1999). 

[3] Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 841 (2004). 

[4] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, Pub. L. 
No. 99-661, § 1207 (1986), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2323. 

[5] The International Organization for Standardization is the world's 
largest developer of standards. Suppliers meeting these standards have 
wide acceptance within their vendor industry. 

[6] A Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)® certification 
confirms that a firm knows the value of establishing effective 
processes. It is based on the premise that even a quality workforce 
cannot perform its best when a firm's processes are not understood or 
not operating effectively. CMMI can be used to guide process 
improvement across a project, a division, or an entire organization. 
CMMI helps integrate traditionally separate organizational functions, 
set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for 
quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising 
current processes. 

[7] Eligible protégés now consist of small disadvantage businesses, 
8(a) certified firms, Women-Owned Small Businesses, firms that employ 
severely disabled persons, service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, 
historically underutilized business zone small business concerns, 
Indian tribe-owned, and Native Hawaiian Organization-owned. 

[8] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 
No. 106-65, § 811 (1999). 

[9] GAO, Defense Contracting: Interim Report on Mentor-Protégé Program 
for Small Disadvantaged Firms, GAO/NSIAD-92-135 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
30, 1992). 

[10] GAO, Defense Contracting: Implementation of the Pilot Mentor- 
Protégé Program, GAO/NSIAD-94-101 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1994). 

[11] GAO, Defense Contracting: Sufficient, Reliable Information on 
DOD's Mentor-Protégé Program is Unavailable, GAO/NSIAD-98-92 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 1998). 

[12] GAO, Contract Management: Benefits of the DOD Mentor-Protégé 
Program are Not Conclusive, GAO-01-767 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 
2001). 

[13] Eight protégé companies had either gone out of business or had 
been purchased by a larger company, precluding the program office from 
contacting them. 

[14] Mentor-Protégé appropriations are procurement funds, which can be 
obligated over a 3 year period. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: