SBA Improperly Evaluated Disabled Individual’s 8(a) Program Application, Says SBA OHA

The SBA failed to properly evaluate the 8(a) Program application of a small business owned by a disabled individual, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

SBA OHA’s decision in Striker Electric, SBA No. BDPE-465 (2013) comes on the heels of a December 2012 case in which SBA OHA held that the SBA had improperly evaluated the 8(a) Program application of a woman-owned business.  Together, the two decisions may suggest that SBA OHA is holding the SBA to a higher standard than may previously have been the case when it comes to the SBA’s evaluation of the “social disadvantage” factor.  If so, it is good news indeed for 8(a) applicants.

Continue reading

New SBA Mentor-Protege Program: Clearing Up The NDAA Confusion

True or false: the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requires the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses?

Contrary to published information issued by at least three large law firms, the answer is “false.”  In fact, although the NDAA authorizes the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses, it does not require the SBA to create such a program.

Moreover, the erroneous statement that the NDAA requires the SBA to adopt a mentor-protege program for all small businesses is just one of three pieces of misinformation being circulated by one or more of these law firms.  Let’s take a quick look at the text of Section 1641 of the NDAA itself and put the confusion to rest.

Continue reading

SBA Improperly Denied Woman’s Gender-Based 8(a) Application, Says SBA OHA

Anyone who works with SBA 8(a) program applications will tell you that it can be very difficult for a woman to demonstrate gender bias to the extent necessary to gain admission to the program.

But for a woman-owned small business business, the road to SBA 8(a) program admission may have just gotten a little easier, as the result of a recent decision by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.  In Strategygen Co., SBA No. BDPE-460 (2012), SBA OHA held that the SBA’s 8(a) admissions office had repeatedly erred in evaluating a woman’s claims of gender bias, and ordered the woman-owned firm admitted to the 8(a) program.

Continue reading

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: SBA 8(a) Mentor-Protege “Shield” Does Not Apply

The SBA 8(a) mentor-protege affiliation “shield” does not prevent a mentor and protege from being affiliated under the so-called ostensible subcontractor rule, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

In Size Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5436 (2013), SBA OHA held that the broad exception from affiliation for 8(a) proteges and their mentors does not prevent the SBA from deeming the companies affiliated under the ostensible subcontractor rule.

Continue reading

8(a) Company Misses Key Personnel Requirements–But Wins Contract Anyway

An 8(a) company failed to satisfy a solicitation’s experience and key personnel requirements, but the 8(a) company walked away with a $23.9 million contract anyway–thanks to the SBA.

The GAO’s bid protest decision in Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., B-407563, B-407563.3, B-407563.4 (Jan. 14, 2013) demonstrates the power of the SBA under its certificate of competency program to second-guess procuring agencies’ determinations with respect to corporate experience, the resumes of key personnel, and other responsibility matters.

Continue reading

Unpaid SBA Loan Leads to 8(a) Program Termination

A construction company with cash flow problems did not make payments on its SBA loan–and was terminated from the 8(a) program as a result.

The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in C.J. Hearne Construction Co., SBA No. BDP-449 (2012) is an important reminder that unpaid debts to Uncle Sam can be the kiss of death for 8(a) program participation.

Continue reading

Guest Perspective: Section 811 Stifles Native American Economic Growth

By Kevin J. Allis

While an eleventh hour agreement avoided the “fiscal cliff,” it did not fully resolve potential spending cuts.  The agreement delayed the sequester, but its impacts are still being felt by contractors, particularly by small businesses.  These entities are at the end of the planning process, and delaying a resolution only prolongs uncertainty.

For Native contractors, there is little to be happy about, and much that raises significant concerns.  The consequences of the uncertainty in the federal contracting environment caused by the still looming possibility of sequestration, coupled with the enormously harmful effects of Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (“NDAA”), are painting a potentially very dreary picture for these companies and the communities they serve.

Continue reading