An 8(a) small business was found to be affiliated with its large subcontractor under the ostensible subcontractor rule based in part on the fact that the large subcontractor was providing mentoring services to the small business–even though the SBA had rejected a proposed mentor-protege agreement between the companies.
The recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in Size Appeal of Brown & Pipkins LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5621 (2014) is a warning to 8(a) firms about the potential dangers of accepting mentoring services outside the confines of a SBA-approved mentor-protege agreement.
A firm will not qualify as a small business for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant if it does not meet the SBIR program’s regulatory ownership and control requirements–and those requirements can be confusing.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals explained how the SBIR program’s ownership and control requirements work in practice.
A SDVOSB’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan caused the company to be ineligible under the SBA’s SDVOSB rules because the service-disabled veteran did not own 51% of the ESOP class of stock.
A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision should serve as a cautionary tale to any SDVOSB contemplating establishing an ESOP–or any other ownership structure consisting of multiple classes of stock.
An 8(a) program protege was deemed affiliated with its mentor–and ineligible for a small business set-aside contract–because the joint venture agreement between the mentor and protege failed to comply with certain mandatory 8(a) joint venture requirements.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals concluded that an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture was not entitled to take advantage of the special exception from affiliation because of the flaws in its joint venture agreement. OHA’s decision is an important reminder to 8(a) mentors and proteges of the critical importance of strictly complying with the 8(a) joint venture regulation.
Only the SBA has the power to grant an extension to the short time deadline for a company to respond to a SBA size protest.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, although the SBA’s practice is to require the procuring agency to grant a concurrent extension, the procuring agency’s agreement alone–in the absence of a corresponding SBA extension–will not permit a protested company to file a late response.
A company’s President was deemed to control the company for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules, even though the company’s majority shareholder had the unilateral right to remove the President from office at any time.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that a company’s President exercised “critical influence” over the company, and that the President’s influence was not rendered illusory simply because the 100% owner could remove the President from office.
An 8(a) protege and its mentor were not affiliated with one another, despite forming eight joint ventures over a four-year period–and winning 15 contracts with those joint ventures.
In a recent size appeal case, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the decision of the SBA Area Office, which found that the mentor and protege were not affiliated despite their substantial history of joint venturing.