8(a) mentor-protege agreements cannot be protested by competitors, according to a recently-issued decision by the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. In Size Appeal of Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5398 (2012), SBA OHA held that the SBA’s decision to approve an 8(a) mentor-protege agreement is outside the scope of the SBA size protest process.
Category Archives: SBA OHA Decisions
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.
SBA OHA: Tribal Companies Entitled to Broad Affiliation Exceptions
Indian tribes, their holding companies, and companies owned by those holding companies are entitled to broad exceptions from the ordinary SBA affiliation rules, according to a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals size appeal decision.
SBA OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of Roundhouse PBN, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5383 (2012), holds that the SBA cannot use non-applicable affiliation rules to circumvent the regulatory exception from affiliation between tribal companies. In its ruling, SBA OHA also sidestepped an interesting tribal size question: did Congress truly intend for some tribal companies to be “small” for 8(a) program purposes, but “other than small” for all other government contracts?
As you can probably tell, the Roundhouse PBN case is not your run-of-the-mill SBA OHA size appeal decision, meaning a slightly longer-than-normal blog post is in order. Let’s dive right in.
SBA OHA: Agencies Cannot Delay NAICS Code Selection
Perhaps the Department of Education took a cue from Congress, which has a reputation for kicking the can down the road, delaying major decisions until after elections (or month-long recesses). In a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals NAICS code appeal decision, ED decided to forego picking a NAICS code until after contract award.
SBA OHA was having none of it, and ED’s own lawyers even agreed–an agency’s NAICS code designation cannot be delayed until contract award.
VA SDVOSB Protests: VA OSDBU Has Sole Jurisdiction
SDVOSB protests relating to VA set-aside procurements may only be decided by the VA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that the SBA currently lacks jurisdiction to decide SDVOSB protests under VA set-aside procurements.
SBA Size Protest Allegations: Use ‘Em Or Lose ‘Em
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.
8(a) Program: SBA OHA Holds Applicant May Work Second Full-Time Job
The 8(a) program regulations require the disadvantaged individual upon whom 8(a) program eligibility is based to manage the firm on a full-time basis, during normal working hours of firms in the same or similar line of business. When 8(a) program applicants learn about 8(a) program’s “full time devotion” requirement, many ask: “can I work a second job?”
Maybe. As seen in a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, an 8(a) program applicant may be able to engage in outside employment–even a second full-time job–so long as the applicant can demonstrate that the outside employment will not interfere with the applicant’s ability to manage the 8(a) firm full-time during normal working hours.
Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: A Look At A Compliant Team
The ostensible subcontractor rule can be challenging, because there is no magic formula for compliance. When a protester raises an ostensible subcontractor rule allegation, the SBA evaluates all aspects of the prime/subcontractor relationship to see whether the ostensible subcontractor rule was violated. If the SBA concludes that the small prime contractor is unduly reliant on it subcontractor, and/or the subcontractor will perform the primary and vital portions of the contract, it will find the prime affiliated with its subcontractor.
Although there is no single recipe for ostensible subcontractor rule success, it can be useful to examine SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals cases to see exactly what sort of prime/sub relationships SBA OHA deems problematic–and which pass muster. Today’s post is in the latter category: a recent SBA OHA decision finding that the ostensible subcontractor rule had not been violated.
What did the prime and subcontractor in that case do right?