A small business was affiliated with companies owned by the business owner’s father and siblings, based on the family relationship and the companies’ ongoing history of doing business together.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the small business had not successfully rebutted the regulatory presumption that companies owned by close family members are affiliated, because the small business had earned substantial revenues from the alleged affiliates, and intended to issue a subcontract to both affiliates with respect to the procurement at issue.
For the purposes of the ostensible subcontractor rule, a firm’s small business size is determined as of the date of final proposal revisions.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, any changes to the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractor made after the date of final proposal have little to no bearing in determining compliance with the ostensible subcontractor rule.
A small business was not affiliated with its largest customer under the SBA’s economic dependence affiliation rule, even though the small business earned as much as 49% of its revenues from the alleged affiliate–and even though the small business’s SEC Annual Report stated that the small business was dependent on its customer.
SBA OHA’s decision indicates that receiving less than 70% of revenues from an alleged affiliate may not, absent other indicia of affiliation, establish affiliation under the economic dependence rule.
A service-disabled veteran-owned small business was awarded its attorneys’ fees for successfully appealing the SBA’s decision that the company was not an eligible SDVOSB.
In what seems to be the first decision of its kind, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the prevailing party in a SDVOSB appeal may be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The SBA affiliation rules are not always intuitive, and perhaps no SBA affiliation rule is as little understood as the so-called “identity of interest” rule under 13 C.F.R. 121.103(f).
Identity of interest affiliation can arise in several ways, including when close family members also have business ties. As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, a close family relationship between two business owners, plus significant business ties, may cause affiliation between the businesses.
When a small business submits an offer for a Blanket Purchase Agreement issued against a GSA Schedule contract, the offeror does not automatically recertify its size. Rather, a new regulation effective December 31, 2013 provides that an offeror’s size status for a BPA issued against a GSA Schedule ordinarily is determined by looking to the offeror’s self-certification for the underlying GSA Schedule contract.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals relied, in part, on the new regulation to find that an offeror had not recertified its small business status by submitting a quotation for a BPA to be issued against the offeror’s GSA Schedule contract.
Under the nonmanufacturer rule, qualifying as a nonmanfucturer requires a small business to provide the end products of a small business–and even “Rich Chicks” must comply.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that a company named “Rich Chicks, LLC” had not complied with the nonmanufacturer rule because Rich Chicks’ proposal did not offer the end products of a small business.