Compliant, Winning Teams: A Three-Part Webinar

Posted on April 29, 2015 by Steven Koprince

Teaming and joint venturing are essential components of success for many small government contractors, and the emphasis on teaming is increasing in light of the SBA’s proposed rule allowing “similarly situated entities” to join together to pursue prime contracts. But teaming and joint venturing are not without risks–there are many unique rules that must be followed, and many pitfalls for the unwary.

That is why I am very pleased to announced that I am joining with the Government Contractors Resource Network to present a three-part webinar series on compliant and effective teaming. Directed at small contractors, this series will begin with an overview of the rules and regulations governing teaming. The series will continue with a discussion of how to prepare effective and compliant teaming agreements, subcontracts, and joint venture agreements. The series will wrap up with an in-depth discussion of federal mentor-protege programs, including the SBA’s new proposed “universal” mentor-protege program.

The first webinar will broadcast on June 19, and the others will follow on June 23 and 25. To register, or for more information, visit the GCRN website. I hope to see you (virtually, anyway) this summer.

SBA Affiliation Rules: “Inter-Affiliate Transactions” Exception Is Narrow

Posted on April 28, 2015 by Steven Koprince

Under the SBA’s affiliation rules, the so-called “inter-affiliate transactions” exception applies only where the companies in question would be eligible to file a consolidated tax return.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the inter-affiliate transactions exception does not apply when affiliated companies are ineligible to file a consolidated tax return–a result that seems to authorize “double counting” of affiliated companies’ revenues in the context of SBA size determinations.

VA CVE Verification Does Not Provide Affiliation Shield, Says SBA OHA

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Steven Koprince

Even if the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation has found that a service-disabled veteran “unconditionally” controls a SDVOSB, the SBA may nonetheless determine that other individuals or entities also control the company within the meaning of the SBA’s affiliation rules.

As demonstrated by a recent decision of the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, VA CVE verification does not shield a SDVOSB from an adverse SBA affiliation determination, even if that determination is based on a finding that non-veterans control the company.

8(a) Program: Follow-On To Competitive Award Can Be Sole Sourced

Posted on April 24, 2015 by Steven Koprince

An 8(a) contract was properly awarded on a sole source basis to a tribally-owned entity, even though the contract was a follow-on to a competitive 8(a) set-aside award.

In a recent decision, the GAO deferred to the SBA’s interpretation of the 8(a) program regulations–which, according to the SBA, allow such sole source awards.

Agencies May Evaluate Proposals During GAO Protests, Says Court

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Steven Koprince

A procuring agency was entitled to evaluate proposals during the course of a pre-award GAO bid protest without violating the automatic stay provision of the Competition in Contracting Act.

According to a recent federal court decision, CICA merely prohibits the award of a contract during the course of a GAO protest, but does not prevent an agency from continuing to evaluate proposals.

FedBid And The SBA: My Interview With Francis Rose

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Steven Koprince

Earlier this month, the GAO sustained two protests filed by Latvian Connection LLC–one on a State Department procurement and one on a Department of Interior procurement–because Latvian Connection’s FedBid usage had been suspended. The GAO held that this was improper because the matter had not been referred to the SBA under the SBA’s Certificate of Competency program.

Yesterday, I appeared on In Depth With Francis Rose to discuss the Latvian Connection cases. Please follow this link to listen to the audio of my interview, and don’t forget to tune in to Federal News Radio every weekday from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. for Francis’s top-notch show.

HUBZone Fraud: $250,000 Settlement In “Virtual Office” Case

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Steven Koprince

A small business and its owner have agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve HUBZone fraud allegations, including a claim that the company’s HUBZone office was a “virtual” location where no employees actually worked.

According to a Department of Justice press release, Air Ideal, Inc. and its majority owner have also agreed to pay the government five percent of the company’s gross revenues over the next five years.