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 Affiliation Rules and Control: The Minority Owner Trap

Posted on by

Does a person who owns a minority share of a company “control” the company under the SBA affiliation rules?  Yes, if the company has no majority owner and the minority share owned by the individual in question is the largest, or is similar in size to, the largest other minority shares.

Get all that?  An example may help.  The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in Size Appeal of Advent Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5325 (2012), demonstrates how this rule can be a trap for the unwary.

Continue reading →

SBA Affiliation Rules and the Present Effect Rule: When Does an Agreement Arise?

Posted on by

Under the SBA affiliation rules, the SBA will apply the so-called “present effect rule” when it examines an agreement for a merger or acquisition, including an agreement in principle.  Under the present effect rule, such an agreement is presently effective with respect to the question of control–which can present a big problem under the SBA affiliation rules.

For example, if Company A has agreed to purchase Company B, the SBA deems Company A to control Company B from the moment the agreement is reached, even if the deal does not close until months later.  This makes Companies A and B affiliates from the date their agreement is reached for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules.

The present effect rule makes sense, but when does an “agreement” arise for purposes of the  rule?  The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals examined this issue in Size Appeal of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5324 (2012).   If you are in discussions or negotiations for a merger or acquisition, and are worried about potential affiliation, SBA OHA’s decision will leave you breathing a sigh of relief.

Continue reading →

Subcontractors, NAICS Codes and Small Business Status: The Prime Decides

Posted on by

George W. Bush famously declared himself to be “the decider.”  Although some comedians had fun with the phrase, it’s hard to argue with Bush’s underlying assessment; as head of the government, the President has a lot of decisions to make.  But when it comes to whether you qualify as “small” for purposes of a federal subcontract, it may surprise you to learn that the government isn’t the decider at all.

For a subcontract, the prime contractor—not the government—decides what NAICS code (and corresponding size standard) applies.  The NAICS code the prime contractor selects for your subcontract need not be the same NAICS code assigned to the prime contract as a whole, and you may have the opportunity to lobby the prime contractor to change the NAICS code to one you believe is better-suited for the procurement–and your small business eligibility.

Continue reading →

SBA Size Protests and the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: The Task Order Loophole

Posted on by

The tax code is famous (or infamous) for perceived loopholes, but the IRS isn’t the only regulatory agency with a loophole in its regulations.   The SBA’s affiliation rules contain—or at least used to contain (more on that later)—a gaping loophole when it comes to Multiple Award Task Order Contracts, or MATOCs, and the ostensible subcontractor rule.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA: Inter-Affiliate Transactions Exception Does Not Apply to a Division

Posted on by

SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals cases frequently involve contractors trying to argue that they are not affiliated with other entities.  But in Size Appeal of The Associated Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5314 (2011), the contractor at issue attempted to argue the opposite—that it was affiliated with another entity, namely, a division of itself.

This strange case came about because the contractor hoped to take advantage of the so-called “inter-affiliate transaction exception” under 13 C.F.R. § 121.104(a), which allows contractors to deduct “proceeds between a concern and its domestic or foreign affiliates” from its average annual receipts for size purposes.  Unfortunately for the contractor, SBA OHA held that a company cannot be affiliated with its own division—meaning that the exception did not apply.

Continue reading →

Technically Unacceptable? No SBA Size Protest for You!

Posted on by

Remember the famous “Soup Nazi” episode of Seinfeld?  The mustachioed title character, brilliantly played by Larry Thomas, will forever be known for barking, “no soup for you!” to anyone who dared break his many rules.  In the SBA size protest arena, as in the Soup Nazia’s restaurant, technical rules abound.  For instance, if your proposal was technically unacceptable, “no SBA size protest for you!”

Continue reading →

The Ostensible Subcontractor Rule and Key Personnel

Posted on by

According to Executive Order 13,495, follow-on contractors must offer a “right of first refusal” to certain incumbent personnel.  Based on the Executive Order, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has previously held that hiring non-management personnel from a subcontractor is no longer evidence of unusual reliance under the ostensible subcontractor rule.

I emphasize “non-management” for a reason: the Executive Order does not apply to non-management personnel.  According to SBA OHA, hiring a subcontractor’s management team—particularly when the subcontractor is an ineligible incumbent—continues to be strong evidence of a violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule.

Continue reading →