A history of close ties between companies does not mean that the companies are presently affiliated, according to a recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In Size Appeal of A&H Contractors, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5459 (2013), SBA OHA overturned a finding of affiliation because most of the ties relied upon by the SBA Area Office had been severed before the applicable date for determining size.
In a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals size decision, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business’s operating agreement caused affiliation under the SBA’s affiliation rules, despite the fact that the majority owner was also labeled as the 51% manager.
SBA OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Washington Patriot Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5447 (2013) shows the importance of carefully drafting a small business’s corporate operating agreements or bylaws to prevent affiliation with other companies controlled by the small business’s minority owners.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.