The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has held that the SBA Area Office did not err by refusing to find affiliation between a tribally-owned company and its sister companies.
SBA OHA’s recent decision in Size Appeal of Bosco Contractors, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5412 (2012), follows on the heels of Size Appeal of Roundhouse PBN, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5383 (2012), in which SBA OHA found that the SBA had erred by adopting a too-narrow view of the tribal exception from affiliation.
Dividing key contract work among several subcontractors will not necessarily allow a small business to avoid affiliation under the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule, according to a recent decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. In that case, the prime contractor divided the primary and vital contract work among four subcontractors–and according to SBA OHA, was affiliated under the ostensible subcontractor rule with all four subs.
The SBA’s newly organized concern affiliation rule is designed to prevent former officers, directors, principal stockholders or “key employees” of a large business from evading the SBA size rules by spinning off a new company.
But who is a “key employee” for purposes of the newly organized concern affiliation rule? As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, the mere fact that an employee has the word “manager” in his or her title does not necessarily make that person a key employee under the newly organized concern rule.
SBA size protests must be filed with the contracting officer, who then forwards the size protest to the SBA Area Office for review. The U.S. Government Accountability Office lacks jurisdiction to consider size protests, and filing a SBA size protest with the GAO will be ineffective, as one contractor recently discovered.
“No, we’re not a small business, but we could really, really use that small business set-aside contract.”
That, in essence, was the content of a document recently filed with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, which SBA OHA charitably treated as a formal size appeal. Reading this case left me scratching my head and wondering: was this the worst SBA size appeal ever filed?
SBA size protests should include all of the reasons why the protester believes the protested company is not small. If the protester omits an allegation from its SBA size protest, the allegation may be lost forever, even if the protester files a SBA size appeal.
One protester recently learned this lesson the hard way. On appeal before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the protester alleged that the awardee was affiliated with the incumbent contractor. The problem? The protester never mentioned any such affiliation in its SBA size protest.
A decision on a request for reconsideration of a denied SDVOSB verification application will take approximately 90 days instead of 60 days, according to the VA Center for Veterans Enterprise. In a letter emailed recently to one service-disabled veteran, who authorized me to publish an excerpt on SmallGovCon, the VA CVE stated:
The regulation, 38 CFR 74, states that CVE has 60 days, when practicable, to make a final decision associated with the request for reconsideration. Unfortunately we have received an exceptionally large number of requests for reconsideration, and currently almost 600 applications are in the reconsideration process. As a result, it is no longer practicable to process these within 60 days. Historically, 20% of companies receiving an initial denial are requesting reconsideration. We have shifted and added resources in an effort to speed up the process. In order to be fair to all applicants, we continue to process all requests for reconsideration on a first come, first served basis. We currently estimate that we will be able to provide a decision within 90 days of receiving the request for reconsideration, so you can expect a decision no later than [date redacted]. As soon as we can give you a better estimate of the timeframe for decision, we will do so.
It is little wonder that the VA CVE is experiencing reconsideration overload, because the VA CVE is denying 60% of initial SDVOSB verification applications. I am sympathetic to the VA CVE’s overworked employees, but I have much more sympathy for the eligible service-disabled veterans who will suffer from the reconsideration delays.