Posts dealing with the 8(a) business development program, including 8(a) admissions and eligiblity, requests for reconsideration, ongoing eligibility and compliance, and related matters.
An Idaho contractor has been indicted on federal charges stemming from allegations that she fraudulently lowered her personal net worth in order to enable her company to be certified in the SBA 8(a) Program and the Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.
According to a Department of Justice press release, the 8(a) and DBE fraud netted the contractor upwards of $9 million–and the Government wants its money back.
A contractor was recently terminated from the SBA’s 8(a) Program for failing to comply with the subcontracting limits applicable to its 8(a) contracts.
The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the termination, writing that the SBA had properly terminated the 8(a) contractor for “willfully violating SBA regulations.” SBA OHA rejected the contractor’s argument that it was exempt from the subcontracting limits under the so-called non-manufacturer rule.
A Florida resident has pleaded guilty in an 8(a) Program fraud case that seemingly has it all in terms of small business violations, from affiliation to subcontracting limits.
According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, Michael Dunkel has pleaded guilty on charges of major government fraud, and faces the potential of significant prison time when sentencing occurs this fall.
A procuring agency appropriately refused to give an 8(a) participant the highest-possible past performance score, despite the 8(a) company’s plan to subcontract to the successful incumbent contractor.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that in evaluating past performance, the agency properly focused on the experience of the 8(a) prime, which was required to perform at least 51% of the contract work and manage the contract.
Last month, I wrote about the successful 8(a) program appeal filed by Gearhart Construction Services. In its decision, SBA OHA held that the SBA had misevaluated Gearhart on the “social disadvantage” factor, including by holding Gearhart to a too-high standard of proof. SBA OHA ordered the SBA to correct its errors and take another look at Gearhart’s application.
Now I can report that Gearhart’s story has a happy ending. On April 11, the SBA notified Gearhart that it had been admitted to the 8(a) program. SBA OHA then dismissed Gearhart’s appeal as moot, because Gearhart and achieved its goal.
Sometimes, gaining admission to the 8(a) program requires tenacity and a continued belief in one’s case, even when the SBA’s 8(a) office has repeatedly denied the application. Gearhart’s perseverance paid off, and the company now has nine years to reap the rewards.
A contractor’s economic dependence on another company can cause affiliation under the SBA affiliation rules, but economic dependence can also be a major problem when a company applies for 8(a) program certification.
As demonstrated in a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, if an 8(a) program applicant has received most of its revenues from another company, the SBA may find that the applicant is economically dependent on the other company–and therefore, ineligible for admission to the 8(a) program.
In the 1990s comedy Groundhog Day, Bill Murray played a weatherman who found himself living the same day over and over again. I am having the same feeling reading SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals cases these days (yes, this is what qualifies as my reading material of choice; don’t judge).
As it has at least five other times since December, SBA OHA has shot down the SBA’s rejection of an 8(a) application under the “social disadvantage” factor. As was the case in several other recent decisions, the latest volley from SBA OHA states that the SBA failed to properly consider the evidence and explain its rationale for denying an 8(a) applicant.