Alaska's 8(a) Economy - What's at Stake

Well, this afternoon we have a really exciting topic that is incredibly important to not just Alaska, but to all of the United States. And we have 4 speakers, excited to have them with us. We've got Katie Barry of McKinley Research, Katherine Carlton with Chugach Alaska, Imalnaadi, one of the original framers of ANCSA, and Nicole Borromeo with the ANCSA Regional Association. I'll introduce each one of them before their presentation, and each will present for up to 12 minutes. That's 12 minutes.

Don't worry, Ross is going to get a sign up if you get close to 11. Uh, he's positioned where you can see that. And, and the point is to bring each of their distinct vantages about the 8 economy and Alaska. Let's get started. So first up, we've got Katie Berry.

She leads McKinley Research, a research and consulting firm that has studied Alaska's economy and industry since 1972. Katie tracks Alaska's economic trends closely through work in tourism, oil and gas, mining, seafood, and construction sectors. Um, just want to do a shameless plug. I have a lot of experience either directly or indirectly working with McKinley.. And they do some phenomenal work, and Katie in particular does.

So we're really lucky to have you, Katie. Thank you. Please come on up, and we'll let you give your presentation.

We're going to take this mic down several inches there. And if I get loose with it and I'm not talking into it, I know Ross will kind of yell at me and make it known, because I'm a traveler here. So thanks for that kind introduction, Fish. As the introduction states, I'm Katie with McKinley Research Group, and our firm serves research and consulting needs across Alaska's sectors, communities, and that spans kind of every kind of social and economic research from economic impact, market demand, all the way to surveys. So some of the things that our firm is particularly known for are these economic impact assessments that are put out by the Oil and Gas Association, the Mining Association, ASMI, and others.

But we have a suite of research that is often confidential, so there's a lot of information behind that. Things that I'm going to share with you today are based on work that we did with the ANCSA Regional Association a couple years ago to really to think about the role of ANCSA in Alaska's economy. And because I'm an economist by background, as I share this information, I'm going to tell you a lot of caveats and disclaimers. Disclaimers, and I'm also going to open it up for rebuttals. So I hope that you'll have some of those throughout.

I wanted to start this off with just thinking a little bit about how, in my perspective, how should people think about Alaska Native corporations in this really broad history of Alaska's economy and how the state has kind of come together over the last couple hundred years. And I'm gonna share a pet peeve of mine with you. How lucky are you? I see these words economic driver used by a lot of people. There's economic impact studies that come out and inevitably someone will say, "This is an economic driver.

That's an economic driver." When I say that about an industry, what I'm talking about is that it's an industry that brings money from outside of an economy into the economy. To make it bigger, to circulate. So that can be an industry like oil and gas that is selling oil on a global market and bringing that money into the economy to pay wages, taxes, all kinds of things. That could even be the economy of Anchorage where folks often live in the Matsu and come into town to spend money. So I'm talking about anything where new money is coming into a system.

The broad brushstroke, and I'm— this is a part where you might want to debate and I would love to after, is that Alaska's kind of traditional western economic history is one where new money comes into our state by selling a raw resource, or pretty raw. So even in terms of seafood production, you know, we're selling a product that's often pretty minimally processed, and that's how new money is coming into Alaska. When I think about the ANCSA corporations, I think about them as a little distinct from that. Rather than selling a raw product in many cases, there is other work that's happening often in the lower 48 that is generating revenue for these corporations which are bringing money back to Alaska. So would I consider the ANCSA corporations an economic driver?

I would because of that drawing new money into our economic system. And I see it as, you know, distinct from these other large sectors that I consider amongst those drivers in the state. That's a really broad brushstroke, and there's good cases where you might say, well, that's not true because we sell zinc from Angksa, and there was timber sold from the Tongass, and that's all right, that's all true. So that's where some of these definitions get a little muddy. Welcome to the first disclaimer.

I'm going to prove to you what I just said, and I'm going to prove it through a few different metrics. And the following statistics are based on that work we did with the ANCSA Regional Association. So they represent regional corporations. I agree, village corporations are very important. They are amongst the largest corporations in the state.

So what you can do with the numbers I share with you is think about them really as a minimum of the impact. So every number I throw out, you should think about a plus sign behind that in acknowledgment that the village corporation data isn't really baked in here. So my first piece of evidence to talk about new money coming into the Alaska economy from the ANCSA corporations is to really share revenue. What you're seeing in this chart is ANCSA regional revenue aggregated across all 12 in 2022. So there's $13.5 billion in combined revenue from all global operations.

About one-third of that, so $4.5 billion, is coming from some business that's based in Alaska, whether that's Red Dog or, you know, seafood assets. Construction, what have you. So that means that the regional corporations generated about $9 billion from business activities outside of Alaska. That's a pretty high level of revenue. And I never like to pit industries against one another, so what I share next is not meant to kind of diminish other industries, but just give some sense of how you should think about the the term 9 billion or 13.5 billion.

So in 2025, Alaska's seafood— so the value of all seafood pulled out of the water at the time it was pulled out of the water was about $1.6 billion. Oil sold from the North Slope is, you know, very volatile pricing situation as many of you know, but that's valued upwards of about $10 billion. So if that helps you anchor at all on kind of the scale that we're talking about ANCSA corporations, those are just numbers I'd provide as evidence. So if there's $9 billion in work and revenue that ANCSA regionals are generating from work outside of Alaska, the next question really should be, where is this work happening?

I— people that are really deep into their own organizations will tell you that that's a really complicated question because there's lots of subsidiaries and different holdings. What I'm showing here is where employees of ANCSA corporations and their subsidiaries are based. And I think this is a good kind of approximation of where this work is happening. You can see that there's about 8,000 to 9,000 based in Alaska. But the regional corporations employ about 50,000 people worldwide.

And I'm— this map isn't very clear. I wish it could be really, really big. But every dot here, every little black dot represents one regional corporation employee. And I'm not clear that kind of the average Alaskan has this map in their mind of places like Alabama, Florida, Texas. Maryland, Virginia, these places where ANCSA corporate employees are based.

So if that helps give a little picture about the geographic dispersion, that's what this is intended to do. Again, another question, so there's 8,000 to 9,000 Alaska employees of the regional organizations. Is that large? Is that small? That's about the number of people that work in Alaska on oil extraction.

Including some support services. Again, not intended as competition, but just for comparison about how you should think about these things.

So I know we're here today to talk about 8 and that other panelists are really going to bring that home, but in general, a good question is, what role does 8 play in that revenue in $13.5 billion? Is it big? Is it small? Is it somewhere in the middle? And the short answer here is that there's no single quantified number that says, "Here's the role of 8 within ANCSA regional corporations," but I think it's pretty well understood that they're important, that 8 contracting is important within these corporations, and changes to that program would have a pretty large impact depending on the organization's exposure to that type of contracting.

This is cut off, which is— it's good that titles aren't important.

I think a pretty obvious question or a line of reasoning I can imagine an average Alaskan having is, "Well, if this work is happening in the lower 48 or globally and employees are based there, what does it have to do with us? What does it have to do with our economy? Why would you say money comes back into our system?" So to the extent that these ventures, these contracts are profitable, that's where we see money come into the Alaska economy, into these headquarters of the different corporations. And those corporations support a lot of activity. I don't think anybody in this room has to be convinced about that.

But they support top-line corporate and subsidiary revenue, which comes into our system as profit, because of the nature of shareholder— the shareholder pool, that has a really deep impact on almost every community of Alaska. I tend to say that there's only one other program in Alaska that has the kind of community reach that shareholder dividends do, and that's the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. Besides that, I can think of No other program that touches, you know, 200 communities every single year in that type of reach. So that's a really important way to think about 8 contracting as having an economic impact on the people of Alaska. Astute observers or people that know a lot about this world also know that not all Alaska Native Corporation employees live in Alaska, but about 72% do.

That's about 110,000 Alaska Native regional shareholders living in the state, 15% of our population. So I would say that anything that impacts, you know, the dividends of 15% of Alaska's population is probably something to stand up and take note of. And then finally, just wanted to give some context around, you know, what is the scope of these dividends? This isn't— is this a dollar per person? Is it not?

It's about $300 to $350 million each year are dispersed through regional corporate dividends, elder benefits, or other direct benefits. So it's a sizable amount of money circulating in our economy. I'm told to wrap it up, which is really lucky because I'm at the end and then none of you can rebut any of these statements. So, but you can find me after to argue. Thanks.

Thank you, Katie. That was fantastic and really, I think, provides a great context. Our next presenter will take a step back, and in order to understand 8, you need to understand the program, how it works, What are some of the changes that have been happening over the years? And the person we have to do that is— we're really lucky to have her. Catherine is the President of Chugach Alaska Corporation and has deep experience across multiple administrations in the 8 space.

So Catherine, if you don't mind coming on up, we'll welcome you to the stage.

Really low. I'm very short. Hi, everyone. I'm Catherine Carlton. I'm the president of Chugach Alaska Corporation.

I also am a board member of ANCSA Regional Association, and I am the policy chair of Native American Contractors Association. All of those organizations are very much involved in the 8 program, and so Some people say I'm an expert, but I don't think you really can say you're an expert in this field because there is so much detail and so much to know. But I'll give you a little piece of my knowledge today that's related to my company and what I've experienced myself. So I appreciate the opportunities to speak today because this conversation matters deeply, not only to Alaska Native corporations and Native communities, but also to the thousands of people that we employ and to the federal agencies and military customers that rely on the work performed through through the SBA 8 program. There has been a great deal of discussion recently about federal contracting, procurement reform, and the future of the 8 program.

Some of the discussion has been thoughtful and some of it's been reflected in misunderstandings about how the program actually operates. So rather than repeat the broader policy case that you are going to hear from others today, I want to focus on something more specific on how it affects Chugach Alaska Corporation, one of the actual ANCs that work in this field. From Chugach's perspective, the risk is not only that policies may change on paper, but the confidence in the program starts to erode before that, inside agencies, inside procurement offices, and inside the day-to-day decisions that affect whether the program remains a reliable avenue to serve our government partners. Chugach Alaska Corporation was founded in 1972 as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. After many of our businesses were devastated by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which was right in the heart of our region, Choogatch moved into the world of government contracting where the SBA 8 program played a key role in helping the company establish itself and grow and build competitive expertise.

Today, Choogatch is a diversified company with roughly 5,000 employees. We operate across 110 locations. We have more than 28 states and 10 countries that we do business in.

And for us, those numbers matter because of what they make possible. In 2025 alone, Chuuketch returned $66.8 million directly to shareholders and communities through distributions, education funding, health and wellness support, cultural programming, and economic development initiatives. This money flows into programs, infrastructure, and services that are designed to build generational success within a largely underserved community. Scholarship funds that provide education and opportunity, cultural programs that require sustained staffing and facilities, health and wellness resources that fill gaps left by chronically underfunded state and federal systems, and economic development efforts. The communities Chugach serves are not starting from a level playing field.

Many of our shareholders live in rural Alaska, where there is little local tax base funding schools or roads, where healthcare access can mean a medevac flight, where the cost of simply existing is higher than almost anywhere else in the country. Building real lasting economic self-determination in that environment takes decades and requires more than a single year return can offer. When we talk about what makes Chugach and other ANCs unique, it's because our business model turns performance into opportunity for our people. Before I move on, I want to pause on what we really mean when we talk about benefits, because this is where the ANC model becomes personal. It's easy to reduce impact to numbers on a slide, But behind every scholarship, dividend, internship, or cultural program is a real person, a real family, and a real opportunity created.

This is Tonya Burroughs. She serves as the senior security specialist for Chugach Government Services. And I have spent the last year mentoring her in the Native American Contractors Association Emerging Leaders Program. So I've taken her to DC twice now, and she's become a pro on the Hill. She knows our priorities left and right.

But at dinner one night, she explained to me why she loves Chugach. When she was a teenager growing up, her family didn't have much. She remembers getting a dividend each year before the new school season, and she was so grateful because it was the only way to purchase clothes before the school year. Later in life, after raising her two boys, she wanted to go back to work. This can be challenging after spending time away from the workforce, but Chugach had an internship position where she worked and went to college.

So she earned her bachelor's, went on to earn her graduate certificate in the Alaska Native Executive Leadership Program, and she's now doing the work that she's doing now for Chugach. She sent her sons off to college also with a Chugach scholarship. Scholarship, and one of her sons graduated this year, and we interviewed him for an intern position just this week. So I'm proud of Tonya and her family and all that she's been able to accomplish. But her story is a great example of the multiplier effect of this model.

When Shugach performs well, the value created does not leave our communities. It continues circulating back into the Native families through education, careers, dividends, leadership pathways, and cultural connection.

The 8 program allowed us to get our foot in the door and build long-term trust and relationships with high-level government agencies that would typically only contract with massive corporations. Because of that opportunity and the growth it enabled, our work today includes highly sensitive and operationally significant environments for the Department of Defense, intelligence, and across the federal government. At NAS Fallon, which is home to Top Gun, Chuukach operates and maintains the airfield systems that enable the Navy's premier tactical aviation training operations. At Fort Greely, Chuukach helps sustain critical ballistic missile defense infrastructure in a remote Arctic environment. Across Navy and Coast Guard platforms, Chuukach installs and sustains command-to-control systems, communication infrastructure, and operational technology essential to fleet readiness.

In Guam and throughout the Indo-Pacific region, Chuuketch supports infrastructure and operational readiness in austere and strategically significant environments. This is mission-critical work, and we are just one of the many Native corporations that perform these important services across the United States defense infrastructure. Federal customers value companies that can execute rapidly, adapt quickly, and maintain long-term institutional knowledge inside highly specialized mission spaces. This is especially important right now as the federal government focuses more heavily on that national security readiness, Indo-Pacific posture, infrastructure resilience, and acquisition speed.

At the federal level, level, there are several overlapping conversations occurring. There is broader Scrutiny of federal procurement and government contracting. There are ongoing discussions around acquisition reform and modernization of the federal acquisition regulations. There are debates around sole source authority competition requirements and how agencies should balance speed, oversight, flexibility, and mission execution. And there are legitimate conversations about ensuring accountability and preventing abuse across federal contracting.

But I think it's important to emphasize that Native-owned 8 firms already operate under extensive oversight and compliance obligations. We must meet SBA's eligibility requirements, annual reporting requirements, financial reporting standards, subcontracting limitations, and community benefit reporting obligations. In our world, relationships are built on execution. You do not continue supporting sensitive military or national security missions for decades unless you consistently deliver on high-quality work. Because these relationships matter deeply to Native communities, most Native contractors view stewardship, compliance, and long-term credibility as our priority embedded in how we perform.

Regional Association and NACA support strong oversight and accountability within the 8 Program. Native-owned 8 firms already operate, as I said, under extensive oversight, audits, and reporting requirements and customer performance scrutiny. Companies like Choogatch are evaluated every day through our execution, CPAR ratings, safety performance, and mission delivery. We welcome that accountability because it creates strong oversight and protects the integrity of the program. The concern is not oversight itself.

The concern is when oversight evolves into a broader climate of suspicion around lawful contracting tools and Native-owned participation in the program. When that happens, agencies can become hesitant to use authorities intentionally created by Congress, even with firms that have decades of proven performance. That uncertainty creates real consequences like slowing procurement decisions, discouraging partnerships, and ultimately reducing opportunity flowing back into the Native communities. There absolutely should be accountability, but accountability should strengthen confidence in the program and undermine a value-driven model that is delivering results for both the federal government and Native communities. So what is at stake?

Ultimately, I think the most important point is that the future of the 8 Program is not just a contracting issue. It is a question about whether the federal government intends to preserve a longstanding model of Native economic self-determination that has proven itself. For ANCs, the stakes are significant: shareholder opportunity, educational access, workforce development, elder support, cultural continuity, regional economic stability, and long-term community resilience. But there are also stakes for the federal government. The agencies that rely on these contractors are relying on proven operational partners with decades of institutional knowledge and mission experience.

So the question moving forward should not be, how do we make this program harder to use, but how do we preserve what is working, strengthen accountability when necessary, necessary and avoid creating so much uncertainty that the program stops functioning as Congress intended.

As this conversation continues in Washington and across federal contracting community, I would encourage people to focus on a few things. If you want to understand what— where this debate is heading, watch what happens on the ground. The decisions being made 4,000 miles away in D.C. have an immediate, direct, and personal effect on our communities here in Alaska. When agencies hesitate to use a lawful tool or when Native contractors face growing ambiguity about the road ahead, the mission suffers. The oversight conversation must be focused on strengthening participation, not discouraging it.

Accountability should keep the focus where it belongs, on mission delivery, on results, and on the contractors who show up and perform. When those contractors perform well, the benefits flow directly back to the communities. That connection is not incidental to the 8 model. It is by design. The success of ANCs is directly linked to our community's ability to grow and thrive.

We know this model works. The question is whether the federal government will continue to recognize its value and enable us to keep driving results for Native communities and federal customers alike. So thank you, and I look forward to the Q&A.

Catherine, thank you for that. Really amazing to see not just the impact in Alaska, but like we said at the beginning, 8 and the Alaska Native Corporation community really deliver benefits that are critical to the national security and welfare of our entire country.. And I think that's something that often gets missed on Alaska. And thank you for really reminding us of that level. And when we think about those major moments in United States history, the next person we have— we are really blessed to have come speak— was the first president of the Alaska Federation of Natives and one of the people that helped negotiate the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which was the federal enabling legislation that really built this— again, not just for Alaska, but for the entire United States.

And he spent 5 decades serving the Alaska Native community and all of Alaska, including time as a commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. So please help me welcome— we're lucky to have Mr. Emil Noddy.

Thank you for the introduction. I'm glad to be here to mention a little bit about how ADAs fit, how ANCs fit into the ADA operation. But first I have to say, I wrote the first letter July 1966 that called for a statewide meeting. That was the beginning of the AFM. So thank you for the chance to, to discuss this.

In 1953, the Small Business Administration created the program created by Congress to assist socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to participate in the program. Over time, laws and regulations were modified and broadened to include economically disadvantaged communities. That's where AFN came in, where ANCs came in. 8 Created a pathway for small businesses to create— to contract with the federal government.

Sorry, your fingers are on the computer here. Can you just turn the page? Okay.

You can keep going. You don't need to—. Just ignore me.

Anyway, in 1986, ANCs were authorized to participate in the SBA 8 program. They were incorporated into 8 through congressional action. We know rural Alaska has many small communities that are economically disadvantaged. These communities fit the program definition for inclusion. Profits from ANCs are widely distributed to shareholders across the state.

That money is important because it circulates through the multiple times through Anchorage economy, Alaska's economy. ANCs also fit regulations for developing sustainable businesses in disadvantaged communities. ANCs have a unique political and legal relationship with the federal government. They are a dramatic shift in policy. A new way for America to deal with indigenous populations.

ANCs are uniquely qualified to develop sustainable businesses and capacity in disadvantaged rural Alaska.

Over a decade, amendments and regulations were added that authorize sole source contracts that allow agencies to implement contracts when time is important to meet short seasons or urgent needs.

These amendments increased or removed dollar caps on contracts as long as they also meet definition of small business. Also, new regulations allowed ANCs to own multiple 8 corporations. Enforcement was stringent and to eliminate fraud and abuses. The goal of these regulations is to build sustainable businesses in disadvantaged communities. Build capacity and competition in contracting with the federal government without preference.

8S operate under explicit congressional authorization. They are among the most audited and scrutinized contractors. They are subject to the same contracting laws and regulations as all government contractors. They do not have any preference or special preference for special treatment. They compete for contracts that guarantee the government will get a fair price.

There are no guaranteed contracts. Federal agencies use 8 because it works. It helps them achieve their mission and goals to efficiently get the contracts into operation, especially in remote, technical, or high-risk conditions.

ADA has been good for Alaska. It has brought millions in profits to our state. These profits are distributed widely and circulate through our economy. They employ many Alaskans without preference. They support sustainable businesses in Alaska.

8, As intended, is building capacity throughout the state. It addresses disadvantage through business and economic development in high unemployed areas. These efforts should be celebrated, encouraged, and supported. 8As are not and do not get special treatment. It enhances job opportunities and benefits to Native communities at competitive prices to the federal government and— that makes it easy on the taxpayers of inefficiency.

ADA is not DEI. It does not guarantee— does not get guaranteed contracts. It does not create individual wealth. It is not corporate enrichment. It distributes earnings broadly.

ADA program is a— Worthy is worth defending. It is an effective program that builds sustainable businesses without preferential treatment.

Program— the program is facing renewed scrutiny. It— if there is misinformation, it is important for ARA to engage criticism. With facts and data. Policymakers and attached affected businesses need to do likewise.

There was a time in Alaska when the banks were barely hanging on. They did not have enough money to finance projects with Native corporations and Aday money in the banks from outside money, and this money comes from all around the world, so they bring the profits here to Alaska and it helps all businesses.

Rural Alaska can be considered one big HUBZone where unemployment meets the definition. Rural Alaskans need such a program. To encourage sustainable businesses. 8 Is an ideal vehicle to do that. It is movement away from preference towards self-determination and sustainable businesses.

It is not about special treatment. It's not about— it is about measurable outcomes, efficiencies, jobs, developing capacity, economics, and self-determination. It benefits Native communities, federal agencies, the American taxpayer, and Alaska. Thank you.

Thank you. That was fantastic. Next up, we've got Nicole Borromeo with the ANCSA Regional Association, which is the association that represents the 12 land-based Native regional corporations in Alaska. Nicole is an attorney by training and a longtime advocate for the Native community, and I always love the notes that moderators are given, because I don't think it says— Nicole is one of the most informed voices in the state on federal procurement policy, reform conversations in Washington, and how those changes interact with fiscal stewardship goals at home. And I agree with all of that, but informed is not actually the word I would use for Nicole.

She is a force and she terrifies the people that she goes into the room when she's advocating for Alaska. They are the ones that lead informed, so, or leave informed. So Nicole, please come on up and thank you for joining us today.

Thank you, Fish. I saw Ross nodding along. This is Ross and I's first time working together, so he may have been terrified of time or two, but here we are, and thanks for having me. I thought it was going at a different order, so I'm the one who's terrified because we've had a fantastic economist in Katie, and every time I get to hear her speak, I just want to hear more. And Katherine is the resident expert, really, in the Native community when it comes to executive leadership in the 8 program.

And then, of course, there's Emil, who needs no introduction, but I really appreciate on our slide earlier where it says history maker under his name. Full stop. There we go. But thanks for having me again. I'm from the interior originally.

I am a Doyon shareholder. I'm also a shareholder of McGrath Native Village— McGrath Native Village Council, excuse me, is my tribe— of MTNT. I'm a chairman of my village corporation board. I've been the board chair for 14 years now, which is a very long time in Native politics. At the village level.

I have 4 children. Today is the last day of school, so I'm sorry that I've been multitasking a little bit, but moms in the room will get it. Dads have no idea. That's okay. And I went to law school at the University of Washington because when I was a senior at Mt.

Edgecomb High School, the State of Alaska sued the Native Village of Venetie, and the question for the court was, did Indian Country exist after our Land Claims Settlement Act. We've been talking about 8 and I think that we may have missed a few steps, so I'm going to take about 45 seconds of my allotted 12 minutes just to make sure that everybody in the room is connecting the dots and understood how— understand how we got here and are participating in the 8 program and really what it is. When Alaska was sold to the United States in the Treaty of Cession in 1867, 1867, um, we became a U.S. territory. We weren't a full state yet. The federal government didn't know what to do with us up here.

We were very far away. We were very big, um, and we did not have industry to support ourself. So, um, naturally Congress was concerned that we would require too much attention and too much money, so they left us as a territory for about 100 years. During that time, A few years later in 1871, Congress restricted the ability to negotiate treaties as a way of settling Aboriginal land claims. The Senate has ratification power over treaties.

Treaties are negotiated under the power of the President and the House of Representatives became a little envious of the power that the Senate had over Indian Affairs. So they slipped a rider into an Appropriations Act before Google and the internet. No one was the wiser. A few weeks later, Congress woke up. Well, half of Congress knew what had happened.

The other half were quite surprised. And we no longer have the ability to settle land claims. So in order to discover—. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I have something that's maybe next time. And that is how we ended up with a federal act, and that act is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. So through ANCSA, Congress transferred title to the lands that we did not receive.

We retained those lands. We gave up hundreds of millions of acres of land in return for just compensation and other benefits of the bargain. But that 45 million acres of land was always intended by our early leaders, including Imo, to result in self-determination by which we could use that land, we could develop that land, and we could support our people and our communities. Unfortunately, there was another act of Congress that came along about 9 years later, and that was the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act. And that act put hundreds of millions of acres into the federal parks and preserves.

Congress at the time said, "We're going to overlay the park and preserve system over the entire state of Alaska, state lands, private lands, including our ANCSA lands. But don't worry, you'll still be able to use and access those lands and you will be able to develop them." Come to find out, development is a little hard in national parks and preserves. So, here we have an amendment to the Small Business Act then in 1986 that allowed Native corporations and tribes to participate in federal contracting, and that's how we got here. Alaska Natives love to shorthand our programs. 8 Is a reference to that specific amendment that allowed us to come into the federal contracting world.

Federal contracting really ramped up after World War II. The federal government requires goods and services for contracts, technology, administration, and the federal government looks to private industry to fulfill those contracts. Prior to our amendment that allowed us to enter the contracting space, Alaska Native Corporations and federally recognized tribes weren't really engaging in the space because The barrier to entry is difficult, it's expensive, and the prime contractors, the Boeings, the Raytheons of the world, held a lot of the contracting space. So the federal government has allowed American Indians and Alaska Natives to participate in federal contracting through a special set-aside. We really aren't that special though, because there are also set-asides for veterans for women-owned businesses and for other contractors.

So that is how we got to the 8 program. And if you didn't know any of that, now you know. And if you knew it all, well, you heard it twice. Okay. So I have been at the Angstrom Regional Association for a year tomorrow.

Tomorrow is my one-year anniversary. Prior to heading up the regional association, I spent a decade working for Julie Kitka as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel at AFN. I've also spent time in private practice and then worked for the federal government and state government as well. But a little bit about our organization. ARA represents the 12 regional land-based corporations.

There is a 13th corporation that was stood up very briefly under ANCSA for Alaska Natives who who were domiciled outside when we passed our land claims. That corporation wound down as soon as those individuals received their part of the compensation package. So ARA today exists to represent the 12 land-based regional corporations. Our members collectively represent about 150,000 Alaska Natives. As Katie said, about 110,000 of them are domiciled here within the state and 40,000 live outside or in various other places of the world.

Our focus at ARA is really to promote and foster economic growth within the corporate system.

The, the current policy when it comes to federal procurement is one of increased pressure and scrutiny. When the president assumes office, every president has the prerogative to to set his or someday her agenda. And that's no different with the Trump administration. President Trump has been very clear that he and his cabinet are going to take a very long, hard look at fraud, waste, and abuse and root it out. He will have no objection from our members here at ARA or most contractors in the the space of federal contracting.

Fraud, waste, and abuse does not belong anywhere in business, let alone in federal contracting. But there has been some misinformed and misguided attacks at the program in Washington that I'm hoping we can spend some time debunking here today. At the end of the day, 8 has become a procurement efficiency tool. For the federal government. To participate in the 8 program is akin to calling on Special Forces in the Department of Defense.

The 8s that secure these contracts compete in almost an alpha negotiation sort of a way, and the federal government likes to award contracts through the 8 Program because, first of all, it's efficient. It cuts down on the procurement time by almost 75%. Federal contracts can take sometimes upwards of a year to negotiate an award. That is an incredible amount of time. When they, on the other hand, need something done fast, any agency has a certain amount of work that can be delegated through the 8 Program, and many agencies like to use the 8 program because they are working with a known entity.

These are trusted partners with track records. The Department of Defense or Department of War really likes the 8 program. On average, here you can see that 8 awards can be given in as short as 30 to 60 days. This is not cutting corners. This is because these alpha negotiators come with all of their books, all of their records, and the contracting officer sits down and engages in a very thorough review before any award is, is earned.

It's really important for us to help you understand, if you don't already, and to leave with the solid understanding that 8s are not awarded based on preference. They are awarded based on on performance. 8 Contractors have to meet very rigorous cost schedules, rigorous audits. They have to earn strong ratings in the CPARS system, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, and deliver measured outcomes. I can tell you as a village corporation chair, delivery is on the federal government's top list and they will make sure that you perform these contracts, even if it is at a loss to you as the contractor.

This is not a competition-free environment. In fact, it is the exact opposite. This is, again, where the strike force of the federal contractors come, and this is an alpha negotiation with the best and brightest contractors out there. Direct awards have to be fair, and by that, we mean to the federal government. These are not special prices.

These are market prices, and the federal government is not in the business of paying premium prices, including through the 8 program. National security is one of the many reasons that the federal government likes to use 8 as its vehicle for federal contracting. You will see our corporations in the cybersecurity space, in the missile defense space, helping with warfighter lethality— I think I'm not saying that one right— and logistics. This is what our ANCs do almost better than any other contracting firm out there, and as a result, they are frequently awarded contracts in this space. The economic impact— Katie touched on that earlier.

So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this slide, but I always like to be compared to the oil industry, so I'll say that loud and proud before we move on.

And then Ross had also asked that I focus some of my time today talking about reforms that are being proposed within the 8 space. Again, the federal government is taking a hard look at ways to cut down fraud, waste, and abuse. We are going to be the best partners in that possible.

But starting maybe from another place here is let's try and assume that there is not fraud, waste, and abuse, especially at the 8 level. Within ANCs and tribal firms. We just don't have those levels of fraud, waste, and abuse that the federal government deals with in other sectors because the barrier to entry and the percentage that— of the awards is so high and so low that we need to just debunk the myth that the 8 program is riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse. Abuse. It is not.

It is operating as Congress had intended it to operate. Our entities pass, again, rigorous audits and are constantly recertified because of the good work that they do within the program. And eliminating the 8 program completely is going to have detrimental effects across every state, but especially here in Alaska, because so much of our economy depends on our members at ARA and the good work that the regional corporations do.

And that is the end of my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. We have about 20 minutes for questions. And just wondering first off if, uh, Ross, you can help me find the screen that has the text.

Remember, those of you online can put your questions in the chat, and, uh, if you have some, please text them to this number and Ross will get them to me. But I think Or we could just ask a question if you have any. Yep. I've actually got a question. Could I take one of these microphones to Katherine?

Just— so Katherine, in the past year, how has the— how have things in Washington affected, like changes of regulation and everything, how has that affected the, I guess, top-line revenue and the process of putting in contracts differently from previous years? Sure. I think first of all, the applications processed by SBA that allow us to renew our entities and then provide reform work in the 8 space has been stalled by SBA. And so we've seen no applications, which means the ANCs cannot have their new entities come into the business. And so that's not something that's hurting this year, but then will certainly hurt in years to come and will have a freezing effect on the ability to compete for some of those contracts.

So that's been super concerning, and that's one of our high priorities at NACA and Ara and within our own personal company to try to resolve with the administration. And then secondly, you know, we went through an 8 fight probably in, I think it was 2008, and we had probably 90% of our revenue from 8 contracting or government contracting. And so we really learned our lesson back then that we needed to diversify our portfolio, and we have done that over the years. And so we are not as heavily reliant on 8 revenue as some of the other, um, ANCs are. Um, and so we have made ourselves more competitive in space where we don't have to use that tool as much.

So for us, we haven't seen a dip in our revenue yet, but we are very concerned that in the coming years we will see it.

Thank you for that, Katherine. Oh, we've got a question in the back there.

I'd like to repeat the question for those online and just to make sure I get it right. It's what are one or two of the things that people express concern about 8? Is that what— was that your question, sir? Yeah, what are those concerns?

I can speak to the first one and maybe you can chime in as well. I think when we began this fight, it was centered around fraud, waste, and abuse. So there were some articles and some media out there that kind of was a gotcha moment to contractors out there that supposedly were performing fraud, waste, and abuse and not applying the rules of the program correctly. And so that created a big splash that, oh, 8 is just riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse, and we need to get rid of that program. So that's one of the drivers.

And then to supplement, I would add that the other one is the administration's focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, which had been the prerogative of the previous administration. It's appropriate as Americans that we take periodic reviews of where we are as a society, and if certain groups have, have not had access to to certain social and economic opportunities because of longstanding generational barriers, and it appears that that's what the administration is trying to do. We're hoping that the review process is coming to an end soon. Audits have been completed, and the 8 program Participants have passed with flying colors, but there is a presumption out there, unfortunately, that contracts are awarded not based on merit, but because of a person's identification into one of the DEI categories. That does not apply to ANC work and to tribal work because there are two types of contractors within the federal space.

One is an entity-owned company, so if you, sir, decided to start a business, and let's assume that you're a veteran, you would be participating perhaps through your veteran status. ANCs participate as an entity. We don't have the same criteria as the individual firms do because we represent communities and people with long-documented barriers to economies and social aspirations that we're trying to achieve.

Jennifer. Yes, a lot of 8As have graduated out of the program, and are you seeing the impact of the same issue as those, those companies are going back after contracts? Are you having any issues with the federal government around the same kind of EPI or whatever? The question is, several companies graduate out of the 8 program, which is very true, and the question Jennifer asked is, As those companies go back to federal agencies to compete for work, are they being cast with or meeting similar frustrations or characterizations as the DEI label that's been used? That's a really good question that I don't know that I have the answer to.

So our graduated companies exist and they compete in the market space. On a competitive basis outside of the 8 program. But I do think that the focus of this administration has specifically been the 8 program, and once you're out of the 8 program, you don't kind of have that scrutiny on you because there's no special contracting vehicle that you're using. So I would say probably no.

I think a question that I'd like to ask Mr. Noddy is, uh, when, when ANCSA was formulated, how much of this federal contracting were people thinking about at the time, and how much of it kind of came later as the relationship between the corporations, the state, and the federal government evolved? It all came later.

ANCs were eligible in 1986. ANCSKA passed in 1971. But there was minority set-asides before that. And I don't think we had very much participation in that program.

And I've got one for Katie. You know, we look at the data that you collect and some of the data that you've shared, but I think of some of the other information that, you know, economists, interested scholars, people can never get enough. What are some of the things that you'd be interested in seeing out there as additional work to understand the impact of Alaska Native Corporations in Alaska's economy? How much time do you have?

You know, I think there's some low-hanging fruit, you know, that we've clearly talked about, is just really quantifying the role of 8 within their revenue sphere. I like to say often that we enter the land of rumor and conjecture in Alaska a lot, and I think we might have some of that going on with 8 of from, oh, they're not that important to, oh, it's very important, and kind of dialing that into how we should think about that would be helpful. In this space, I'm going to kind of veer off a little bit as well, but, you know, the other thing that is really likely to impact ANCSA corporations in the coming years is the closure of Red Dog Mine and changes to the Level 7 revenue revenue sharing that is likely to happen, which is a whole tangent we could go on. I just have gone on it, so you're welcome. But, but really, I think understanding how village corporations use 7J revenue and rely on it overlaid with this, all of these other conversations, is important now.

It will be more important later. I really appreciate that. I think two The one that I'm super interested in is we often really understand the direct employment of Alaska Native corporations in Alaska, but there are so many businesses and contractors and other groups that actually work with Alaska Native corporations, and it's that second-order indirect employment that I know most Alaskans— I'm seeing enough heads nod in the room— that have had that experience of that economic footprint spreading out. And not to get into a very difficult political topic at the time, but Alaska Native corporations, because of the way ANCSA are structured, are in Alaska required to be C corporations, which means they are by definition corporate income taxpayers. And I think that's something as someone who watches the debates in Juneau all the time, something that I would like to see elevated a bit more as we have conversations about fiscal issues in Alaska, remembering that Alaska Native corporations are the one type of corporation in Alaska that is forced to be a corporate income taxpayer in the state.

And so I think I'd like to come back to Nicole. And say one of the most challenging things you deal with, Nicole, is taking all of these benefits and all of these issues and trying to distill them down to the person in Washington who is probably recently entered the position, has no clue where, uh, what Alaska Native is, where box on the map we're in, or just how large the state is. So I'd ask you, what is— as you've engaged at the federal level, what are some of the things you find adapt in the message as you convey the importance of Alaska Native corporations in the 8 program? What are some of the best things that you've seen really resonate with outsiders? Well, based on your introduction earlier, I do everything by sheer terror and fear, but— it's true.

Thanks, Nick. When I'm not employing that tactic, what I think is always such an aha moment for Congress is reminding them that they wrote this law, that they— that that they imposed this structure on us with some negotiation, that we do not view corporation as an unpleasant word up here, and that in fact we are income taxpayers based on their congressional prerogative to settle our land claims in the manner they did. So that's a whole master class. And once we move on to the TED Talk 2.0, then we remind them that we also share revenue, which if their minds haven't already been blown, now they really are, because it's so anti-American that a corporation would take 70% of its profit and give it away. But we do in the Native community at the corporate level.

If resources are developed in the subsurface estate, so from the ground down, and that land is on— if that project is on land that is owned by our regional corporations, because our regional corporations own the subsurface estate, they immediately move 70% of the profits out to the other regional corporations. So that's a mind-blowing moment in and of itself. Then for the 3.0 version, we say, oh, but guess what, the revenue The sharing doesn't stop there. We then force the regional corporations to share 50% of any of the profit that they received with the village corporations in their regions. And the fact that this money circulates the way it does, and Katie talked about, we really do need to look at 7 and 7, especially as Red Dog starts its shutter-down phase.

These, these are the conversations decisions that really bewilder policymakers. Go ahead, Ross. I guess from a doom and gloom perspective, if we don't have 8 contractors, what would that do to our government as far as their contracting? Who would that money go to and how would it— what detriments would happen —because of not having 8 contracts to work with? This sounds like a fabulous question for Katie.

As a non-economist and a taxpayer, I could guess that the top, you know, 1% is going to get even richer. The federal government has goods and services that need— that it needs, right? So someone is going to be performing these these contracts. Don't think that they're going to go away. It's just not going to go to the small businesses.

It's going to primarily be consolidated within the bigger companies in the private sector. And with that, Katie. Am I stepping in a minefield here? Good, good. No, I'm not, you know, I take a little different tack at this question that, you know, when I hear that line of thinking, The presumption I hear behind it, and this is probably not your intention, Ross, but I hear the presumption that these corporations are not competitive unless this program exists, which I push back on in a really stringent way.

Many of our corporations, it's been 55 years, it's been 55 years. And, you know, of course, not every line of business is a 55-year line of business like the one Susan Bell built. But But they have decades of history, decades of qualifications, decades of proving that they are delivering these goods and services. And so I don't think we can discount that entirely and say that if the program goes away, the competition, you know, it falls apart for the corporations. It just adds a new element.

And, you know, I think you put it really well, Nicole, that that the competition gets fiercer, and when we see that, that can leave corporations that are smaller at a disadvantage. I think that's fair to say. I think that's a really helpful perspective, Katie, and I want to ask Mr. Nauti to dive in, and as you do, and offer your perspective. The success of ANGSA is pretty remarkable. Workable in the short time since its passage.

I'd also like to ask you to kind of close us out with thinking about what advice you have for corporate leadership and Alaskans looking forward to the next 50 years. Well, first of all, just to put things in perspective, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in 1925 the, uh, 8 contracts amount to 4% of the contracting of the federal government. So it's, it's not a big issue for the federal government.

I forgot what the question was, but I would say that the, the corporations have to pay more attention to the shareholders.

Well, I'll just say that.

That's— Well, how we doing on time, Ross? It's 5:30. All right. Wrap it up. Well, I just want to thank you all for listening, both in person and online, and please If you appreciate programming like this, remember you can join Commonwealth North online, Track Down Ross.

We're always looking for sponsors and support to continue to bring this type of dialogue and education out to the community, not just here in Anchorage, but all over the state. So thank you very much, and thank you to our panel.