The VA SUBCON Act requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, through the VA’s Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, to establish and maintain a database of small businesses certified by the Small Business Administration as veteran‑owned small businesses (VOSBs) and service‑disabled veteran‑owned small businesses (SDVOSBs). The database must allow users to distinguish between SDVOSBs and VOSBs without service‑connected disabilities and is explicitly intended to support the Department’s subcontracting goals under 38 U.S.C. §8127.
The bill sets eligibility filters (excluding firms in mentor‑protege programs or joint ventures and firms without at least two prior prime contracts rated “Satisfactory” or better in CPARS), makes the database available to non‑small prime offerors at appropriate acquisition stages for preparing subcontracting plans, requires a report within 180 days of stand‑up, insists on using existing VA resources (no new appropriations), and sunsets the authority on December 31, 2028. These operational choices shape who will appear in the roster and how useful it will be to contracting officers and primes seeking compliant subcontracting partners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the VA’s Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Director to create a searchable roster of SBA‑certified VOSBs and SDVOSBs, with built‑in distinctions between the two categories and eligibility screens tied to CPARS performance and mentor/protege or joint‑venture status. It also requires a usage report to VA oversight committees within 180 days of establishment.
Who It Affects
Directly affects SBA‑certified veteran‑owned and service‑disabled veteran‑owned small businesses that meet the CPARS and non‑affiliate criteria, VA contracting and small‑business staff who must operate the database, and non‑small prime offerors who will use the roster to prepare subcontracting plans. It also affects VA procurement officials tracking achievement of 38 U.S.C. §8127 goals.
Why It Matters
By centralizing vetted veteran‑owned suppliers, the bill aims to reduce search costs for primes and give VA contracting officers a targeted tool to increase veteran small‑business participation in subcontracting. But the combination of exclusion rules and a near‑term sunset will determine whether the database becomes a durable sourcing instrument or a short‑lived compliance aid.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act orders the VA to build and run a database composed only of firms that the Small Business Administration has already certified as veteran‑owned or service‑disabled veteran‑owned. Rather than creating a general directory, the database is narrowly scoped: it must let users tell SDVOSBs apart from VOSBs without service‑connected disabilities, and it must exclude firms that participate as protégés or in joint ventures and any firm lacking a minimal track record of two prime contracts with CPARS ratings of “Satisfactory” or better.
Access is not public open browsing; the statute instructs the VA to make the roster available to “other‑than‑small businesses” that are offerors on VA contracts at the appropriate acquisition stages so primes can build compliant small‑business subcontracting plans. The bill therefore functions as both a sourcing tool for primes and a management tool for the VA to measure subcontracting performance against statutory goals in 38 U.S.C. §8127.Implementation is constrained: the bill says the system must be built using existing VA staff, systems, and funds and expressly forbids new appropriations or the creation of a separate office.
The Secretary must report to the Veterans’ Affairs committees within 180 days of standing up the database with metrics on usage and counts of veteran‑owned firms selected as subcontractors; absent further action, the authority to maintain the database expires on December 31, 2028.Taken together, the Act is a targeted procurement reform: it channels existing SBA certification data into a VA‑operated tool for primes and contracting officers, but it also limits participation through eligibility screens and constrains the VA’s implementation options by denying new resources and imposing a statutory sunset.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the VA’s Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to establish and run the database using existing personnel and funds—no new appropriations or offices are authorized.
Firms will be excluded from the database if they are part of a mentor‑protege program or joint venture, or if they lack at least two prior prime contracts rated “Satisfactory” or better in CPARS.
The database must let users distinguish between VOSBs and SDVOSBs to support compliance with the subcontracting goals in 38 U.S.C. §8127(a)(1).
VA must submit a report to the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees within 180 days of the database’s establishment that describes usage, counts of veteran firms selected as subcontractors, and recommendations to increase utilization.
The authority to operate the database automatically sunsets on December 31, 2028, unless Congress acts to extend it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the “Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network Act” or “VA SUBCON Act.” This is purely formal but tells readers how the statute will be cited in procurement policy guidance if enacted.
Authority and responsible official
Assigns the task to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs acting through the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (the office established by 15 U.S.C. §644(k)). Practically, this places responsibility inside the VA’s existing small‑business apparatus rather than creating a new entity, so program design, data ingestion, and access control will be managed by that office’s staff and systems.
Purpose and category distinctions
Frames the database’s purpose as supporting VA subcontracting goals under 38 U.S.C. §8127 and the review mechanism in §8127(a)(4). The bill explicitly requires the roster to differentiate SDVOSBs from VOSBs without service‑connected disabilities, which matters because statutory targets and reporting often treat those categories separately.
Eligibility filters and exclusions
Sets two substantive exclusions: (A) firms that are part of a mentor‑protege program or joint venture cannot be listed; and (B) firms without at least two prior prime contracts with CPARS evaluations of “Satisfactory” or better are excluded. These filters narrow the pool to experienced, independently operating veteran firms, but they also eliminate newer firms and certain structured relationships from visibility on the roster.
Access for prime offerors
Requires the VA to make the database available to “other‑than‑small businesses” that are offerors on Department contracts (including subcontracts) at appropriate acquisition stages to help prepare required small‑business subcontracting plans. That language ties roster access to the acquisition timeline and to primes’ regulatory obligations under the FAR and VA procurement rules.
Reporting requirement
Directs the Secretary to report to the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees within 180 days of establishing the database. The report must explain how the VA has made the roster available and used it, provide counts of veteran firms selected as subcontractors (broken out by VOSB and SDVOSB), and offer recommendations to increase utilization—information oversight committees will use to assess effectiveness.
Funding constraint and sunset
Specifies implementation using existing VA personnel, systems, and funds and explicitly disallows new appropriations or a new office. It also sets a statutory sunset for the section on December 31, 2028. Those two mechanics together create a compressed window and a resourcing constraint that will shape operational choices such as integration with existing VA IT assets or reliance on manual processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- SBA‑certified SDVOSBs and VOSBs with CPARS history: firms that meet the CPARS and independence filters gain a curated channel to primes and increased visibility when primes prepare subcontracting plans tied to VA goals.
- VA contracting officers and small‑business staff: acquire a centralized tool to identify vetted veteran‑owned subcontractors and to document efforts toward 38 U.S.C. §8127 goals, reducing time spent sourcing and auditing compliance.
- Prime contractors (non‑small offerors): receive a VA‑provided list to accelerate preparation of subcontracting plans and reduce search and due‑diligence costs when seeking compliant veteran‑owned subcontractors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Veterans Affairs staff and systems: the bill bars new appropriations, so VA must absorb development, maintenance, and data‑quality work within existing budgets and personnel, creating internal trade‑offs against other workloads.
- Veteran‑owned firms that are new, in mentor‑protege relationships, joint ventures, or lack CPARS history: exclusion rules can block these firms from roster visibility, reducing their opportunity to be considered for VA subcontracts despite potential capability.
- Prime contractors subject to subcontracting plan requirements: while the database helps priming, primes may face increased expectations to use the roster and document searches; small primes without CPARS history may incur costs to meet visibility thresholds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating a compact, dependable roster of experienced, independently acting veteran‑owned firms to make VA subcontracting both auditable and reliable, and keeping the door open to newer, partnered, or otherwise‑structured veteran businesses that could expand opportunities but raise questions about experience, independence, and performance—while forcing the VA to deliver a useful system without new funding and only for a limited period.
The bill tries to maximize reliability by limiting roster entries to SBA‑certified, experienced firms, but that reliability comes at the cost of breadth. Excluding mentor‑protege participants and firms without two CPARS‑rated prime contracts will filter out many emerging veteran‑owned firms and relationships that contracting officers or primes might otherwise leverage to meet small‑business goals.
The statute does not provide a mechanism to override exclusions where a joint venture or a newer firm would better satisfy a mission need.
Operationally, the prohibition on new appropriations and the instruction to implement the database using existing VA resources create a real risk that the initial system will be minimal, poorly integrated with acquisition platforms (like VA’s acquisition portals, SAM.gov, or SBA databases), or reliant on manual updates. The bill also leaves vague what “appropriate stages of the acquisition process” means in practice, who controls access, how often records must be refreshed from SBA certifications and CPARS, and what privacy or proprietary protections apply to firm performance data.
Finally, the sunset means the database is a time‑limited tool unless Congress extends the authority. That creates uncertainty for firms that might invest to meet CPARS thresholds or for the VA to commit to long‑term integration with contracting workflows—the short window reduces incentives to make robust, durable technical investments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.