A 1099 independent contractor is a subcontractor–not an employee.
This guidance comes from the SBA’s major new rule on the limitations on subcontracting, in which the SBA responded to public questions about how independent contractors are to be treated.
The SBA has issued a final rule implementing the changes to the limitations on subcontracting enacted by Congress in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
The SBA’s final rule takes effect June 30, 2016–and will significantly change the way the limitations on subcontracting are calculated and enforced moving forward.
I have just returned from the Midwest Small Business Government Contracting Symposium in Moline, Illinois where I presented on the topic of “Big Changes for Small Business: New Federal Contracting Rules and Regulations.” There was a great turnout and I enjoyed getting to connect with many of the attendees and presenters. But now that I’m back in the office, it’s time for the SmallGovCon Week In Review.
In this week’s edition, with about six months left in the Obama administration’s term, we take a look at which initiatives will survive and what could potentially go away forever, changes that would required contractors to be registered in SAM prior to submitting an offer loom in the near future, Congress looks to reduce vendor anxiety and more.
I am back from a trip to the Quad Cities of Illinois and Iowa, where I gave two presentations at the Midwest Small Business Government Contracting Symposium. My first presentation focused on upcoming legal developments (including the big Kingdomware Supreme Court decision, which is due any day now); my second talk centered on the SBA’s pending universal mentor-protege program.
It was great to spend two days meeting with small government contractors, large mentors and small business liaison officers, government officials and others in the industry. A big “thank you” to the Iowa/Illinois Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association for organizing an outstanding event. Thanks also to the Illinois PTAC, the Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce, and all of the other event sponsors for their contributions, and to the Midwest SBLO Group for inviting me to address its quarterly meeting. And of course, thanks to all of those who attended the conference (and my presentations!)
If you weren’t able to make it the Quad Cities for this year’s event, please feel free to contact me for copies of my PowerPoint slides. As for me, I’ll be sticking closer to home for a little while, before kicking off a busy August with a trip to Texas for the 20th Annual Government Procurement Conference. Hope to see you there!
In a fixed-price procurement, an agency cannot reject an offeror for proposing a “too low” price unless the solicitation specifically contemplates a price realism evaluation.
This point is one of several interesting issues recently addressed by GAO in URS Federal Services, Inc., B-412580 et al. (Mar. 31, 2016). Another interesting issue—pertaining to an offeror’s protest of the awardee’s subcontractors’ size—will be addressed in a forthcoming post. But this post serves as a reminder of an important limitation to a protester’s ability to challenge an awardee’s price.
The SBA will broadly apply the so-called “interaffiliate transactions” exception under the SBA’s size rules, essentially overturning an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision issued last year, in which OHA interpreted the exception very narrowly.
In a Policy Statement issued May 24, 2016, the SBA states that it will broadly apply the interaffiliate transactions exception “regardless of the type of relationship that resulted in the finding of affiliation.”
As we forge into the second half of May, those of us around the Lawrence, KS are are preparing for a nice weekend full of beautiful weather and outdoor fun. But our weekend plans won’t stop us from bringing you the top stories from around the country in this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review.
This week’s edition brings you a look at the possible hold put on DISA’s RFP, False Claims Act allegations leading to a $2.25M settlement, a company forced to dispose of its yacht and pay a hefty fine, and much more.