Submitting a proposal for a task order under an 8(a) Government Wide Acquisition Contract does not result in automatic recertification of the offeror’s small business size status.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that unless the Contracting Officer expressly requires recertification, an offeror’s size for an 8(a) set-aside task order is governed by that offeror’s size status for the underlying GWAC.
The SBA 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture exception from affiliation applies to non-8(a) contracts, so long as the joint venture meets the 8(a) regulatory requirements.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA Area Office erred by deeming a mentor and its protege affiliated for purposes of a non-8(a) contract, without considering whether the joint venture qualified for the mentor-protege exception to the ordinary SBA affiliation rules.
The SBA will “make it a priority” to adopt regulations establishing mentor-protege programs for SDVOSBs, HUBZones, and WOSBs in the next 12 months, according to the SBA’s most recent semiannual regulatory agenda.
The regulatory agenda states that the three new mentor-protege programs are expected to be “similar” to the 8(a) mentor-protege program, which suggests that the special joint venturing benefits currently available only to 8(a)s may become available to SDVOSBs, HUBZones and WOSBs, as well.
A participant in the SBA’s 8(a) program must obtain the SBA’s prior approval before switching its business structure–or else.
Case in point: recently, an 8(a) participant was terminated from the 8(a) program because it switched its corporate structure from a corporation to a limited liability company without the SBA’s prior approval.
Lateness can also lead to severe consequences within the SBA 8(a) program. In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA properly terminated an 8(a) program participant because the participant had failed to submit a complete 8(a) annual report–months after the deadline had passed.
The SBA’s claim that it could not access information provided by an 8(a) program applicant in DVD format was “not credible,” according to a recent 8(a) program appeal ruling issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In Sunrise Staffing, SBA No. BDPE-499 (2013), the SBA OHA–in an unusually sharply-worded opinion–rejected the SBA’s excuses for not reviewing relevant information provided by the 8(a) program applicant, and granted the applicant’s 8(a) appeal.
An 8(a) firm’s failure to actively pursue its business has caused the SBA to terminate the firm from the 8(a) program.
Upholding the termination, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals noted that if an 8(a) firm’s fails to make substantial and sustained efforts to obtain business, the SBA is justified in kicking the firm out of the 8(a) program.
This blog is for educational purposes only. Nothing posted on this blog constitutes or substitutes for legal advice, which can only be obtained from a personal consultation with a qualified attorney. Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the author and/or Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird LLP. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this blog is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird LLP.