1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Tribal Consultation Meeting for 8(a) Business Development and Mentor-Protégé Programs Provides Insight Into SBA Priorities Under the New Administration

Tribal Consultation Meeting for 8(a) Business Development and Mentor-Protégé Programs Provides Insight Into SBA Priorities Under the New Administration

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.12.25

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced that it is holding a tribal consultation meeting and requesting comments and input on topics relating to the 8(a) and mentor-protégé programs. The tribal consultation will be held on June 13, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska, and SBA is anticipating that the meeting will cover a range of topics relevant to 8(a) and mentor-protégé program participants.

First, SBA is seeking input on the 8(a) program generally. SBA asks that tribes, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) provide their perspective on how the 8(a) program is working and how it could be made more efficient to better suit the needs of small businesses owned by these entities.

Second, SBA is requesting best practices on how entity-owned firms market their capabilities to procuring agencies. The published notice states that certain practices may be negatively impacting entity-owned firms’ ability to receive awards, including creating the perception that entity-owned firms are affiliated when several appear on the same webpage or where multiple firms owned by the same entity have exactly the same capabilities and contact points.

Finally, regarding the mentor-protégé program, SBA is interested in receiving comments and input on whether protégé firms are truly able to direct and manage their mentor firms when performing a mentor-protégé joint venture contract. SBA states that some mentors have pre-existing relationships with certain procuring agencies and do not include protégé firms in critical meetings with those agencies, despite the protégé being the project manager of the joint venture. The notice states that this is contrary to the intent of the mentor-protégé program, because protégé firms should be the ones directing the actions of a mentor-protégé joint venture. SBA also states this could lead to instances of non-compliance with the limitations on subcontracting requirements but does not further explain how.

Industry has been waiting to see how the Trump Administration will address SBA programs and this meeting is the first substantial indication of where SBA’s 8(a) and mentor-protégé programs may be headed. The meeting and subsequent updates will likely provide insight into the future direction of these programs.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....

View All Insights