Author Archives: John Holtz

Beyond Tax Returns: Federal District Court Says Contractors Must Include Information Outside Tax Returns in Calculating Size

Posted on by

When it comes to calculating a company’s receipts for size purposes, the procedure for is (or at least was) pretty simple: Look at the company’s tax returns. Indeed, it has long been SBA’s position that they can only consider tax returns, as noted in Nordstrom Contracting & Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5891 (Mar. 7, 2018) (“[T]here is no authority for an area office to consider any evidence apart from tax returns…when calculating a firm’s average annual receipts.”) among other cases.  In other words, if something was not mentioned in a tax return, it couldn’t be considered by SBA. The only exception was if the tax returns were not filed, in which case SBA will review financial statements or similar information in lieu. 13 CFR § 121.104. Therefore, other than that exception, a contractor only needs to rely on the information in its tax return when making its size representation.

But the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia (DDC) thinks otherwise. On May 18, 2023, it entered a decision on opposing motions for summary judgment in a size protest that had become a False Claims Act case. In this decision, it concluded the opposite: Contractors must in some cases consider information outside their tax returns. Let’s take a deeper dive.

Continue reading →

Why File: A Request For Equitable Adjustment

Posted on by

If you are a government contractor, odds are you have faced a situation where some aspect of the contract you were performing changed outside of your control, or you ran into something that neither you nor the government expected. As a result, your work requirements likely changed, and with that, your costs likely changed as well. When this happens, there are multiple paths to getting reimbursements for those new costs, and one of the most common ones is a request for equitable adjustment. Today, we’re going to explore when you should submit a request for equitable adjustment as opposed to the other routes.

Continue reading →

Playing Dr. Frankenstein: DoD Memo Tries to Revive Joint Venture Facility Clearance Requirements

Posted on by

Back in 2021, GAO came down with a clear decision on whether Department of Defense (DoD) agencies could require a joint venture (JV) to have its own facility clearance level (FCL) if its component members held the required FCL themselves. Infopoint LLC, B-419856 (Aug. 27, 2021). That decision was “no,” and it was based on a very strong foundation: The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (2020 NDAA), an act of Congress, contained a provision, Section 1629, expressly forbidding DoD agencies from doing such. We in fact did a blog post on this GAO decision and litigated this very matter. Despite this, in October 2023, the DoD quietly released a memorandum describing how they think they can still require JVs to have their own FCL. Today, we look at this memorandum to see what DoD is saying.

Continue reading →

A Bridge (Not) Too Far: Prohibition on Dividing up Contracts to get Under 8(a) Sole Source Dollar Limit Doesn’t Apply to Bridge Contracts

Posted on by

Under 13 C.F.R. § 124.506, if an 8(a) contract price would exceed a certain threshold ($7 million for manufacturing contracts, $4.5 million for others), in most cases, the agency must compete the set-aside.  13 C.F.R. § 124.506(a)(5) is a provision meant to close up what otherwise would be a loophole in the rules. It states that “[a] proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount may not be divided into several separate procurement actions for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures to award to a single contractor.” But this rule does not apply in all circumstances. In particular, it does not apply to bridge contracts.

Continue reading →

CMMC 2.0 and You: A Look at the Department of Defense’s Proposed New Cybersecurity Rules

Posted on by

In 2019, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced the development of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program, which was then implemented in 2020 as an interim rule. We blogged about that way back in 2020. This program was designed to give a certification to contractors based on the depth and effectiveness of their cybersecurity systems to help ensure that contractors implement required security measures. As DoD put it, “[t]he CMMC model consists of maturity processes and cybersecurity best practices from multiple cybersecurity standards, frameworks, and other references, as well as inputs from the broader community.” In late December 2023, the DoD issued proposed changes to the CMMC program for “CMMC 2.0,” a plan that DoD began work on back in 2021. In this post, we will take a general look at these proposed changes.

Continue reading →

Extraordinary Actions v. Day-to-Day Decisions for Joint Ventures: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Back in 2020, we discussed an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decision stating that the managing venturer must control every aspect of the joint venture. This position, which we questioned in that article, has changed since that time, and we explored the changes to the regulatory language in question not long thereafter. But this regulatory language was still vague. Since that time, there has been much case law development. The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held in 2022, “[a] minority owner’s control over “extraordinary” actions, such as actions intended to protect the investment of minority shareholders, will not result in a finding of negative control” and applied this idea to a populated joint venture. Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1279, 2022 WL 1231428 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2022), aff’d, No. 2022-1601, 2022 WL 17576348 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). It now appears, fairly established at this point, that non-managing venturers can have a say in what can best be described as “extraordinary actions.” These are the sorts of decisions that can completely change the trajectory of the joint venture. But contractors must still be very careful in giving the non-managing venturer a say in the joint venture’s decisions. As one firm learned the hard way in a recent COFC case, a joint venture with too many actions controllable by the non-managing venturer may end up ineligible for set-asides. Here, we explore this decision.

Continue reading →

A HUBZone Appeal Appears! Continuing our Look at the HUBZone Appeal Process

Posted on by

Earlier this year, SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeal (“OHA”) released its first HUBZone status protest appeal decision. That decision, as you may recall was fairly straightforward, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal. About half a year later, OHA has issued its second HUBZone status appeal decision! This one is even more straightforward than the first one, but it is important nonetheless as it now gives us further insight into the HUBZone appeal system. Let’s take a little look.

Continue reading →