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.

The SBA Affiliation Rules, Trustees, and Negative Control: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Small government contractors ask me, with some frequency, whether placing a company’s stock in a trust will protect the company from affiliation under the SBA affiliation rules.

I typically answer this question with one of my own: “who will control the trust?”  I tell them that if the same people who currently control the company will continue to control it once the stock is placed in trust, the mere act of placing the company’s stock in the trust is unlikely to shield the company from affiliation with other companies controlled by those same people.

A recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirms that the ordinary SBA affiliation rules typically still apply when a company’s ownership is placed in trust.  In fact, in this size appeal decision, the company in question lost out on a contract because one of the trustees had so-called “negative control” over the company–essentially, the ability to veto the decisions of the other trustee.

Continue reading →

SBA Size Protests and the Brooks Act

Posted on by

The so-called “Exception Paradox” is one of those un-winnable logic games.  It goes something like this, “if every rule has an exception, then doesn’t the rule that every rule has an exception have an exception, too?”

These are the sorts of brain teasers that sometimes kept me busy in grade school (what can I say, I wasn’t a very cool fourth grader).  Fortunately, when it comes to SBA size protests, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has made it easy to understand an exception to one common rule.  In a recent decision, SBA OHA held that the ordinary rule governing when an offeror is deemed “small” for a particular federal procurement does not apply to a SBA size protest filed in connection with an architect-engineer competition conducted under the federal Brooks Act and FAR 36.6.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA: Subcontractor Costs Cannot Be Excluded From Receipts

Posted on by

I’m a government contracts lawyer these days, but when I was much younger, I was a would-be prime contractor.  During my senior year of high school, I took a part-time job at the Grand Forks Herald, my hometown newspaper in North Dakota.  Flush with cash (at least compared to where I’d been before), I then attempted to subcontract my household chores—things like taking out the trash and feeding the dog—to my younger brother.

My parents put the kibosh on that one, explaining that as a member of the family, I needed to personally contribute some labor to it (as a dad now, I can see where they were coming from).  But imagine I had been successful, paying Pete, say, $20 weekly to toil on my behalf for the Koprince household.  Could I have told the IRS, come tax season, that the money I paid Pete didn’t count toward my income, because I passed it through to him?

“Of course not,” you’re probably saying, and you are right.  And, on a much larger scale, the same is true when it comes to a small government contractor’s subcontract costs.  As the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has held, all of a company’s receipts—with very limited exclusions—count toward its size under a revenue-based SBA size standard.  Just because you subcontract a portion of a government contract to another company does not mean that the money you pay your subcontractor doesn’t count toward your own receipts.

Continue reading →

8(a) Mentor-Protege Joint Ventures: SBA OHA Confirms Broad Exception from Affiliation

Posted on by

I find Google Trends, which catalogs “hot searches” on any given day, rather fascinating.  Half of the hot searches seem related to one celebrity or another, but others reveal that many folks are spending their time Googling such things as “zombie apocalypse” and “national doughnut day.”  Does anyone remember what office workers actually did all day before the Internet?

If Google Trends had a government contracts subsection, “joint ventures” would be one of the trendiest of search terms.  Joint ventures are a hot topic these days, for small and large government contractors alike.  8(a) joint ventures are perhaps the trendiest of all, thanks to a special exception from the ordinary SBA affiliation rules.  In a recent SBA size appeal decision, SBA OHA confirmed that this exception from the affiliation rules is broad, even allowing an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture–potentially–to violate the so-called “three in two” rule.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA Decides First EDWOSB Eligibility Appeal

Posted on by

My daughter is learning to take her first steps, while holding onto the furniture.  Yesterday, she started pushing her stroller around the living room, essentially using it as a walker.  My wife and I looked at each other and said something like, “things are about to get really interesting around here.”

Things are also about to get interesting when it comes to the women-owned small business program, and its subset, the economically disadvantaged women-owned small business program.  Ever since the WOSB program formally came into being last year, I’ve been saying that it was only a matter of time before WOSBs and EDWOSBs started protesting one another’s eligibility for WOSB and EDWOSB set-aside procurements.

Now, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has ruled on its first WOSB appeal.  What happened?  Well, for one, all WOSBs should make sure their facsimile machines are in good working order before submitting another bid.

Continue reading →

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: Hiring Incumbent Employees “En Masse” Causes Affiliation

Posted on by

In the syndicated television show Crossing Over, psychic John Edward (not to be confused with former presidential candidate and tabloid mainstay John Edwards), claimed to carry on conversations with deceased relatives of audience members.  Perhaps not surprisingly, some critics have been skeptical of Mr. Edward’s supposed paranormal abilities, accusing him, according to Wikipedia, of using “prior knowledge or a wide array of quick and sometimes general guesses to create the impression of psychic ability.”  In other words, according to the critics, Crossing Over was one big sham.

Crossing Over–and the significant questions surrounding its legitimacy–is an apt metaphor for a question I commonly get from small companies planning a subcontracting relationship with an ineligible incumbent.  “Can we just hire all the prime’s employees?” they ask.  While this type of “crossing over” of employees, from ineligible incumbent subcontractor to eligible small business prime contractor, is not always impermissible, hiring too many of an ineligible incumbent’s employees–particularly managerial employees–can be seen as a sham of sorts by the SBA, as seen in one recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Continue reading →

SDVOSB Eligibility: Lack of VetBiz Verification Irrelevant for Non-VA SDVOSB Set-Asides

Posted on by

“So what?”

That, in essence, is what the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals had to say in a recent SDVOSB appeal decision, in which the protester contended that the service-disabled veteran-owned small business in question was not listed in the VA’s VetBiz database.  The SBA OHA decision serves as an important reminder: CVE verification only matters for VA SDVOSB set-asides.  When another agency sets-aside a procurement for SDVOSBs, there is no requirement that the awardee be listed in the VetBiz database.

Continue reading →