Includes decisions of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, including size appeal decisions, service-disabled veteran-owned small business appeal decisions, NAICS code appeal decisions, and women-owned small business appeal decisions.
An owner of a mere 4.16% minority interest nonetheless “controlled” a company within the meaning of the SBA’s affiliation rules because the company’s ownership was split among approximately 20 companies, each with an equal ownership interest.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that, where a company has no 50% or greater owner, a minority owner may be presumed to control the company–even where that ownership is as little as 4.16%.
Individuals who had common investments in eight different companies were treated as a single person for purposes of the SBA’s affiliation rules–and the aggregation of those owners’ interests cost one company a small business set-aside award.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals explained how the little-understood common investments affiliation rule works, and in so doing, provided an important warning to business owners who may not realize that affiliation can result from common investments in multiple entities.
The nonmanufacturer rule requires, among other things, that the prime contractor supply the end items of a small business manufacturer, or obtain a SBA waiver of that requirement. Compliance with the nonmanufacturer rule is determined as of the date of the final proposal–and a subsequent switch in manufacturers won’t be recognized by the SBA.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA had erred by evaluating a prospective prime contractor’s nonmanufacturer rule compliance because the small business end manufacturer in question had not provided a quotation to the prime until well after the prime’s proposal had been submitted.
Under the SBA’s affiliation rules, a minority owner may “control” a company where the company’s governing documents impose supermajority voting requirements that require the minority owner’s consent for the company to make ordinary business decisions.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that supermajority voting requirements may establish control (and affiliation), even where the minority owner does not actually exercise its control.
A protest challenging a company’s status as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business is not the same as a protest challenging other aspects of an agency’s award decision (such as the evaluation of the protester’s proposal)–and these differences can determine whether a protest is timely and correctly filed.
In a recent case, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals provided some clarity on key differences between SDVOSB protests and bid protests, including important limits on the SBA’s jurisdiction.
When the SBA evaluates a size protest, it need not obtain and consider “outside sources” of information–that is, information that is not provided by the protester or the protested business.
A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals highlights the need for a size protest to include specific, detailed information about why the protested firm is alleged to be “other than small.” If the protester does not include information from outside sources, the SBA is not required to seek out such information on its own.
Ostensible subcontractor affiliation was not created when the small prime contractor proposed to hire its subcontractor’s current employee to serve as the prime contractor’s project manager.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that, where the prime contractor would retain supervision and control of contract performance, the prime contractor was not dependent on its subcontractor for contract management.