Category Archives: Statutes and Regulations

New SBA Mentor-Protege Program: Clearing Up The NDAA Confusion

Posted on by

True or false: the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requires the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses?

Contrary to published information issued by at least three large law firms, the answer is “false.”  In fact, although the NDAA authorizes the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses, it does not require the SBA to create such a program.

Moreover, the erroneous statement that the NDAA requires the SBA to adopt a mentor-protege program for all small businesses is just one of three pieces of misinformation being circulated by one or more of these law firms.  Let’s take a quick look at the text of Section 1641 of the NDAA itself and put the confusion to rest.

Continue reading →

Limitations On Subcontracting: Congress Enacts Major Changes

Posted on by

Congress has enacted major changes to the limitations on subcontracting rules for small government contractors.

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama on January 3, contains two important changes to the subcontracting limits.  First, for services contracts, compliance with the limitations on subcontracting will be based on the total amount paid to the small business, not the cost of the contract incurred for personnel.  Second, small businesses will be able to meet their own performance requirements by subcontracting to other small companies.

Continue reading →

Congress Authorizes SBA Mentor-Protege Program For All Small Businesses, Centralizes Oversight

Posted on by

Congress has authorized the SBA to create a mentor-protege program for all small businesses, not just socioeconomically disadvantaged companies.

This major change was included in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act and signed into law by President Obama on January 3.  The 2013 NDAA also addresses the recent proliferation of agency mentor-protege programs (and, by extension, the SBA’s refusal to acknowledge an exception from affiliation for participants in most other agencies’ mentor-protege programs) by requiring most procuring agencies to obtain SBA approval for their mentor-protege programs.

Continue reading →

AbilityOne Program: Court Shoots Down “Arbitrary and Capricious” Contract Award

Posted on by

The AbilityOne Program cannot be used to award a contract when it is questionable whether the contractor will comply with the requirement that significant portions of the work be performed by the severely disabled, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

In Systems Application & Technologies, Inc., No. 12-526C (2012), Judge Eric Bruggink, in an opinion brimming with colorful quotes, shot down the Army’s effort to award a contract involving significant degrees of physical labor at a remote location to an erstwhile AbilityOne participant, holding that the prospective awardee had not come close to demonstrating that the work would (or could) be performed by the severely disabled.

For contractors concerned that the AbilityOne program may be subject to misuse, the Systems Application case is confirmation both that questionable practices occur in AbilityOne contracting, and that such practices will not be tolerated by the Court.

Continue reading →

Federal Court: Small Business Set-Asides Are “Competitive”

Posted on by

A federal judge has denied a large business’s pre-award bid protest, which was based on the large company’s argument that small business set-asides do not constitute a type of competitive procurement.

Although the decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Res-Care, Inc. v. The United States, No. 12-251C (2012) involved a specific statute applicable to Job Corps Centers, the court’s affirmation of small business set-asides as “competitive” reinforces an important principle underlying FAR Part 19 and other programs benefiting small government contractors.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Upholds Agency’s 40% Small Business Subcontracting Goal

Posted on by

The United States Court of Federal Claims has denied a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration’s establishment of a 40% small business subcontracting goal–measured by total contract price, not total subcontracting dollars.

In Firstline Transportation Security v. The United States, No,. 12-601C (2012), Judge Thomas Wheeler  rejected arguments that the TSA’s 40% small business subcontracting goal was unreasonable, contrary to the FAR, and improperly established a partial small business set-aside.

Continue reading →

Teaming Agreements and Proprietary Information: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Are you taking adequate steps to protect your proprietary and confidential information from misuse by teammates?

If your teaming agreement or non-disclosure agreement requires you to mark proprietary information with a “protected” legend, the answer may be “no.”  Although many standard teaming agreements and non-disclosure agreements require protective legends in order to protect confidential information, contractors sometimes fail to apply the appropriate legend.  And when that happens, at least according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the contractor may have no basis to complain that the teammate stole its confidential information.

Continue reading →