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.
A firm’s small business size status for federal procurements is measured by the firm’s revenues, not by its profits.
As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals explained in a recent size determination, measuring small business status by reference to profits would allow some very large companies to qualify as “small.”
An unsuccessful offeror’s email to the Contracting Officer, in which the offeror expressed “concerns” about the awardee’s small business size status, was too vague to constitute an SBA size protest.
According to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, a viable size protest must be explicit enough to alert the Contracting Officer that the offeror is protesting the awardee’s size.
“Common investments” affiliation under the SBA affiliation rules can occur when the SBA believes that two individuals’ common investments in multiple companies will cause the individuals in question to act with a common purpose.
A recent SBA OHA size appeal decision shows how the common investments rule can work in practice–in this case, resulting in the business in question being deemed affiliated with several other companies.
A SBA size protest must contain some basis for the belief that the company being protested is not an eligible small business.
As demonstrated in a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, a protester’s “bare allegation” that the protested firm does not qualify is insufficient, and will cause the SBA to dismiss the size protest.
Perhaps no single aspect of federal government contracting causes more confusion than the fact that the government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.
The current system can lead to inconsistent results, such as a company being a “SDVOSB” for purposes of VA contracts, but not those issued by other agencies (or vice versa). As SmallGovCon readers know, I am on record as stating that the “two SDVOSB programs” approach is idiotic and ought to be scrapped. (Okay, maybe I wasn’t on record with the word “idiotic” before. I guess I am now.)
But while I cross my fingers and hope that Congress will simplify things, SDVOSBs are stuck with the current system. And, as a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals case demonstrates, SDVOSBs should be aware of the important differences between the two SDVOSB programs.
A SBA size determination issued in 2007 was not binding on the question of whether the same company was still small in 2013.
According to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, there is no rule providing that an SBA Area Office must follow its own prior size determination. Rather, an SBA Area Office is free to issue a size determination contradicting its own prior ruling.
A service-disabled veteran, who owned 80% of this business and served as its highest officer, “controlled” the company within the meaning of the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA OHA’s commonsense decision overturned an earlier SBA determination that the veteran’s majority ownership and officer position did not amount to “control.”