Category Archives: SBA Size Protests

SBA OHA: Contractor Successfully Fractured Economic Dependence Affiliation

Posted on by

A contractor is not economically dependent upon another firm where it receives only a small proportion of its revenues from the other firm as of the self-certification date for a set-aside contract–even if the contractor previously received more than 70% of its annual revenues from the other firm.

This was the commonsense decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in a recent size appeal case, in which SBA OHA held that a contractor’s prior economic dependence on another company does not necessarily mean that the companies are still affiliated under the SBA’s affiliation rules.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Enjoins Contract Award Pending SBA OHA Size Appeal

Posted on by

If a contractor ends up on the losing end of a SBA size protest, the contractor has the right to appeal to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.  The problem is that SBA OHA size appeals can take months.  A contracting officer may be unwilling to wait, and simply award the contract to the next company in line.

Neither the FAR nor the SBA’s regulations require the contracting officer to suspend award or performance pending SBA OHA’s decision.  However, as a recent case demonstrates, if the SBA OHA appeal has a reasonable likelihood of success, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may issue an injunction prohibiting the procuring agency from awarding the contract pending the result of the SBA OHA size appeal.

Continue reading →

SBA Size Protests: Timeliness Mistake Proves Costly

Posted on by

SBA size protests are often dismissed when contractors misunderstand the size protest timeliness rules.

A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision offers an important reminder that for negotiated procurements, the clock starts ticking on a potential SBA size protest upon notification of the prospective awardee–not when the contract is actually awarded.

Continue reading →

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: Lessons Learned From SBA OHA

Posted on by

Avoiding affiliation under the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule can be difficult, especially since the ostensible subcontractor rule itself, 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), does not provide many examples of the factors that may cause ostensible subcontractor affiliation.

A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, Size Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5436 (2013), demonstrates that even when a proposed subcontractor will play a major role in the procurement, ostensible subcontractor affiliation may be avoided if the parties carefully structure their relationship.

Continue reading →

SBA Affiliation Rules: Directors’ Control “Illusory,” Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

A director does not “control” a company under the SBA affiliation rules when that director can be removed at any time by the majority shareholder, according to a recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

In Size Appeal of Environmental Quality Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5429 (2012), SBA OHA arrived at the commonsense conclusion that when a majority shareholder has unfettered discretion to fire a company’s directors, the majority shareholder–not the directors–control the company for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules.

Continue reading →

Late SBA Size Protest Response Sinks Contractor’s Small Business Eligibility

Posted on by

No matter a company’s actual size, the company will be deemed an ineligible large business if it fails to timely respond to a SBA size protest.

Just ask American Blanching Company, which was recently found ineligible for a small business set-aside contract because it did not respond to a SBA size protest within the short size protest response window.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA: Northrop Grumman Entity Was An Ostensible Subcontractor

Posted on by

You would think a company as large as Northrop Grumman would know how to avoid ostensible subcontractor affiliation with a small prime, wouldn’t you?

You’d be wrong.  In a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, a Northrop Grumman entity entered into a teaming arrangement with a small prime, in which all three key employees identified in the proposal were employed by the large subcontractor.  The result: ostensible subcontractor affiliation.

Continue reading →