In its past performance evaluation, an agency typically can consider the past performance of an offeror’s affiliate, so long as the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate will affect contract performance.
But, as demonstrated in a recent GAO decision involving an Alaska Native Corporation subsidiary, ordinarily there is no requirement that an agency consider an affiliate’s past performance. In other words, unless the solicitation speaks to the issue, the agency’s consideration of an affiliate’s past performance is optional.
In its evaluation of past performance, an agency was permitted to disregard a past performance reference prepared by an offeror’s sister company–which also happened to be in line for a subcontracting role.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO upheld the agency’s determination that the sister company’s reference was “inherently biased” and need not be considered in the agency’s past performance evaluation.
An Alaska Native Corporation subsidiary was not affiliated with its parent company and two sister companies under the ostensible subcontractor affiliation rule, even though the company in question would rely on the parent and sister companies for managerial personnel, financial assistance and bonding.
A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals highlights the breadth of the exemption from affiliation enjoyed by ANC companies.
The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals lacks jurisdiction to consider whether an entity owned by an Indian tribe or Alaska Native Corporation has obtained a substantial unfair competitive advantage within an industry.
In a recent size appeal case, OHA acknowledged that an unfair competitive advantage is an exception to the special affiliation rules that tribally-owned companies ordinarily enjoy–but held that only the SBA Administrator has the power to determine that an Indian tribe or ANC has obtained, or will obtain, such an unfair advantage.
The 8(a) Program regulations will undergo some significant changes as part of the major final rule recently released by the SBA, and effective August 24, 2016.
Here at SmallGovCon, we’ve already covered big changes to the SDVOSB Program and HUBZone Program brought about by the new SBA rule. But the 8(a) program is affected by the new rule too, and important changes involving eligibility, the application process, sole source awards, NHOs, and more will kick in later this month.
I have just returned from the Midwest Small Business Government Contracting Symposium in Moline, Illinois where I presented on the topic of “Big Changes for Small Business: New Federal Contracting Rules and Regulations.” There was a great turnout and I enjoyed getting to connect with many of the attendees and presenters. But now that I’m back in the office, it’s time for the SmallGovCon Week In Review.
In this week’s edition, with about six months left in the Obama administration’s term, we take a look at which initiatives will survive and what could potentially go away forever, changes that would required contractors to be registered in SAM prior to submitting an offer loom in the near future, Congress looks to reduce vendor anxiety and more.
We’d like to wish all of the mothers out there who read the SmallGovCon blog an early, but very happy, Mother’s Day. Our early gift to you is this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review. (Don’t get too jealous, fathers–we’ll have a similar gift for you in June).
This week brings an announcement that small businesses received over 25% of federal contracting dollars–but those statistics are under fire in a new lawsuit. Also, we take a look at why some lawmakers are worried about small businesses being negatively impacted by category management, a pair of whistleblowers cash in with nearly $3 million dollars to settle claims of fraud, and much more.