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 prime contractor was not economically dependent on its subcontractor for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules because a prime contractor “has the power to choose whatever subcontractor it desires.”
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals stopped short of holding that a prime contractor could never be economically dependent on a subcontractor, but SBA OHA’s decision indicates that if such dependence ever existed, it would be in an unusual case.
Contracting Officers are not required to assist potential protesters by furnishing them with information to use in SBA size protests.
According to a recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the SBA properly dismissed a size protest for lack of support, notwithstanding the protester’s allegation that the Contracting Officer had failed to provide information needed to support the size protest.
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.