Department of Defense Set Aside Enforcement Act of 1993
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 1, 1993
Department of Defense Set Aside Enforcement Act of 1993 - Requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to award ten percent of its annual defense procurement contracts and subcontracts to historically Black colleges and universities and small disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses. (Currently, it is a goal of DOD to award five percent annually to such entities.) Authorizes the Secretary of Defense, beginning on October 1, 1993, and ending on September 30, 2000, to meet the ten percent requirement by awarding up to one half of the dollar amount of the contracts awarded to certain entities previously eligible for such contract award but no longer eligible by reason of size. Requires each entity that enters into a prime contract with DOD under the contract award program to spend at least five percent of the amount of the contract for subcontracts with certain covered entities meeting the requirements of small disadvantaged and minority-owned businesses. Requires prime contractor proof of the awarding of such subcontracts. Directs the Secretary to withhold five percent of the prime contract amount from the contract, which shall be used as direct payment to the subcontractors for work completed. Requires that, in a services contract awarded under such contracting procedures, at least 50 percent of the cost of contractor performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the covered entity. Provides alternative methods for meeting such 50 percent requirement. Outlines requirements for a small disadvantaged or minority-owned business for purposes of this Act. Directs the Secretary to require, as a condition for approval of a contract with DOD, that the potential contractor provide documentation that it is in compliance with the equal opportunity clause as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Requires identical certification by the subcontractors of such contractor.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1609 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1609 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1609 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1609 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.