SBA recently revised its affiliation regulations in a number of ways, some of which we have already discussed here. We have likely sounded pretty upbeat about most of SBA’s recent updates thus far, as the majority do seem to be a step in the right direction–adding clarity to SBA’s rules and furthering the policies SBA seeks to enforce. Well, not trying to rain on any parades here, but at least one of SBA’s recent regulatory updates, (at least in our humble opinion) has the potential to confuse federal contractors regarding SBA’s affiliation rules. That update revised the language in SBA’s “Two-Year Rule” for small business joint ventures–though, it really didn’t change the substance or effect of the rule, at all. Let’s take a closer look.
Continue readingTag Archives: three-in-two rule
The “Three-in-Two” SBA Joint Venture Rule is Partly Gone–Now It’s Time to Get Rid of the Rest
Last year, SBA made joint venturing a little easier by relaxing the so-called “three-in-two” rule. But the “two-year” portion of the rule still exists–and in my view, the rule continues to unfairly elevate form over substance.
SBA, it’s time to take the plunge, and get rid of the rest of the three-in-two joint venture rule.
Continue readingSBA Fixes Joint Venture Security Clearance Problem
For joint ventures operating under the SBA’s regulations (including SBA-approved mentor-protege joint ventures), dealing with security clearances has been a particularly vexing issue: some contracting officers have insisted that a joint venture (an unpopulated, limited-purpose entity) separately obtain a Facility Security Clearance, even when both joint venture members hold FCLs.
Soon, though, joint venturers will be able to stop worrying about obtaining separate FCLs for their unpopulated joint ventures. A new SBA regulation taking effect next month allows a joint venture to rely on the security clearances of its members.
Continue readingBye-Bye, “Three-in-Two” Joint Venture Rule
If you’ve attended one of my presentations on joint ventures over the years, you’ve probably heard me climb up on my soapbox and proclaim that the so-called “three in two” joint venture rule is one of my least favorite rules in government contracting. If you ask me, the rule is both terribly confusing and so easily circumvented as to be largely meaningless.
Perhaps the SBA was listening to me and others who strongly dislike the rule, because the the three-in-two rule is going away. Effective November 16, 2020, the SBA will replace the three-in-two rule with a different and much less confusing requirement–basically, a “two” rule.
Continue readingAlert: SBA Issues Final Rule on Consolidation of Mentor-Protégé Programs and Other Contracting Rules
As we discussed, in late 2019 the SBA issued a proposed rule that would make a number of significant changes to the Mentor/Protégé programs and other small business contracting rules. Well, the SBA will soon issue its final rule on these changes, so make sure you are aware of the new rules.
Continue readingSBA Proposes to Remove the “Three” from the “Three-In-Two” Rule for Joint Ventures
The SBA recently proposed a rule that would amend the infamous three-in-two (AKA 3-in-2) rule for joint ventures. SBA’s current regulations provide that a joint venture can be awarded no more than three contracts over a two-year period.
While SBA plans to keep the two-year lifespan for joint venture awards, it plans to get rid of the three contract maximum.
Continue reading8(a) Mentor-Protege Agreements Cannot Be Protested, Says SBA OHA
8(a) mentor-protege agreements cannot be protested by competitors, according to a recently-issued decision by the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. In Size Appeal of Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5398 (2012), SBA OHA held that the SBA’s decision to approve an 8(a) mentor-protege agreement is outside the scope of the SBA size protest process.