Category Archives: SBA Size Protests

OHA and the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: A Two-Prong Test You Can’t Fix After the Fact

Posted on by

In a recent decision, OHA ruled that the ostensible subcontractor rule requires a two-prong evaluation before SBA can find affiliation. The SBA Area Office took a look at only one prong, which resulted in a remand from OHA. Ultimately, OHA found affiliation, reversed the SBA Area Office and found the concern ineligible. As OHA made clear, entities can’t fix deficiencies after the fact.

Think of the ostensible subcontractor rule like the preferred go-to move (other than line dancing) at a Country/Western Dance Hall, it is the ostensible subcontractor two-step. Follow along as I lead you through the dance you need to get right to avoid stepping on the toes of your proposal.

Continue reading →

Whose Jurisdiction is it Anyways? GAO Dismisses Size Challenge

Posted on by

GAO recently dismissed a protest to an awardee’s eligibility under the applicable size standard. The protester argued that the agency should have known that the awardee exceeded the nonmanufacturer rule’s 500-employee maximum. After extensive briefing from both parties and from the SBA itself, GAO found that the awardee’s proposal didn’t raise any issues and that it was really up to the SBA to decide the size issues anyway.

Continue reading →

YouTube Tuesday: Procedures & Pitfalls of Size Protests & Appeals Handbook Now Available

Posted on by

I’m proud to announce that the new GovCon Handbook, Procedures & Pitfalls of Size Protests & Appeals, is now available! This video highlights some of the main topics from the book.

You can order the book here. I’m also conducting a webinar on August 5 to explore some of the key insights. Be sure to check out the webinar or contact me if you have questions.

New GovCon Handbook Coming Soon! Procedures and Pitfalls of Size Protests and Appeals

Posted on by

I’m pleased to announce that volume 5 of the “Koprince Law LLC GovCon Handbooks” series will be published soon! This GovCon Handbook, entitled Procedures and Pitfalls of Size Protests and Appeals, will be published through Amazon. Check the rest of this post for additional details.

Continue reading →

Years after Expiration of Mentor-Protégé Agreement, Joint Venture Still Small Based on Proposal Date

Posted on by

SBA regulations say that size is determined as of the date an offeror submits its initial proposal, with price. On its face, this rule seems pretty straight forward. But what happens if the initial proposal was filed six years ago? And what if the joint venture that submitted the proposal has since expired?

Following OHA’s recent logic, the proposal-date rule stands even in these unique circumstances.

Continue reading →

Task Order Size Protests: Too Little, Too Late, Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

So, your company has made it past the first big hurdle and got on a GSA schedule. You see a small business task order pop up that you believe your company would be perfect for, but another company gets the award. Based on information you have heard or read, you believe something fishy may be going on and the awarded company may be a big fish that found its way into the small pond. 

But can you timely protest the task order award?

Continue reading →

Unpopulated Joint Venture Can Be “Manufacturer” For SBA Size Purposes

Posted on by

When a small business sells products to the government under a contract designated with a manufacturing NAICS code, the small business either must be the “manufacturer” of the products, or separately qualify under the nonmanufacturer rule. The nonmanufacturer rule, in turn, requires the prime contractor to have no more than 500 employees, whereas manufacturers may fall under larger size standards–some as big as 1,500 employees.

But what about an unpopulated joint venture that doesn’t itself manufacture any products, relying on the individual venturers to manufacture the solicited goods? Does it also have to comply with the 500-employee size standard under the nonmanufacturer rule? Or can the joint venture be deemed the “manufacturer” of the products in question?

Continue reading →