GAO: Procuring Agency May Withhold Names Of Incumbent’s Subcontractors

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Bidding against an incumbent prime contractor often presents unique challenges. In some cases, the incumbent has been highly successful, and the procuring agency may hope to award the follow-on to the same company. Even if the agency is not predisposed to favor the incumbent, the incumbent often knows more than its challengers about how the new procurement will actually operate “in real life.”

But just because an incumbent has unique information about the ongoing procurement does not mean that the procuring agency is necessarily required to level the playing field by releasing that information to challengers. For instance, in one recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that the procuring agency was not required to release the names of the incumbent’s subcontractors or other proprietary and confidential information about the incumbent contract.

Successful NAICS Code Appeal Turns Large Company Into Small Business

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Steven Koprince

A little more than a week ago, I blogged about the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision in NAICS Appeal of Delphi Research Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5377 (2012), in which a small business used the NAICS code appeal process to change the relevant size standard from 1,500 employees to $25.5 million. The Delphi NAICS code appeal decision effectively lowered the solicitation’s size standard, increasing the ability of smaller companies like the protester to compete.

However, it is important to remember that the NAICS code appeal process works both ways. If a company is too large for the size standard the procuring agency assigns to a solicitation, it may be able to use the NAICS code appeal process to replace the agency’s preferred NAICS code with a NAICS code carrying a higher size standard. This is precisely what happened in a recently-decided SBA OHA case, NAICS Appeal of CHP International, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5367 (2012).

SBA OHA: Not The Place To “File” A SDVOSB Protest

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Steven Koprince

For small government contractors, SBA size and eligibility issues are of critical importance. Recognizing this, the SBA provides an independent forum–the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals–to review potential mistakes made by the SBA Area Offices, which decide SBA size protests.

Small government contractors must remember, however, that SBA OHA exists to evaluate the decisions made by SBA Area Offices, not to evaluate new allegations raised for the first time in the course of a SBA OHA appeal. Case in point: SBA OHA’s recent decision in Size Appeal of In & Out Valet Co., SBA No. SIZ-5354 (2012), in which the protester apparently attempted to “file” a SDVOSB protest with SBA OHA during the course of its SBA size appeal.

Small Business Violates Ostensible Subcontractor Rule, Wins Contract Anyway

Posted on July 30, 2012 by Steven Koprince

The SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule has tripped up many small businesses over the years. The rule states that a small prime contractor is affiliated with its subcontractor when the prime is unusually reliant upon the subcontractor and/or the subcontractor will perform the primary and vital portions of the contract work.

It is worth remembering, however, that the ostensible subcontractor rule only matters if affiliation between the prime contractor and subcontractor would cause a size standard problem. If the sizes of the prime contractor and its ostensible subcontractor, added together, do not exceed the size standard, a violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule doesn’t matter.

That is what happened in one recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, in which a small prime contractor had an ostensible subcontractor–but was declared an eligible small business anyway.

Joint Venture Between Small Business, Large Company Not “Small”

Posted on July 27, 2012 by Steven Koprince

Go on, go on. Call me Captain Obvious for writing this post if you must, but the question actually comes up quite often: can a small business joint venture with a large business and qualify as “small” for purposes of a federal small business set-aside contract?

The answer, as confirmed in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals SBA size appeal decision, is “no,” unless the joint venturers are participants in the SBA’s 8(a) mentor-protege program. Unfortunately for the joint venturers in Size Appeal of BY&R Contractors, LLC & West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc. JV, SBA No. SIZ-5349 (2012) not only were they not an 8(a) mentor and protege, but neither company was even an 8(a) participant.

GAO Has Jurisdiction Over BPA Modification Protests

Posted on July 26, 2012 by Steven Koprince

The GAO has jurisdiction to decide protests challenging modifications to blanket purchase agreements, according to a recent GAO protest decision. In Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc., B-406601 (July 11, 2012), the GAO rejected a procuring agency’s argument that BPA modifications are a matter of contract administration, and thus outside the GAO’s protest jurisdiction.

Explaining HUBZone Eligibility And The 35% Residency Requirement

Posted on July 25, 2012 by Steven Koprince

In order to qualify as a HUBZone business, 35% of a company’s employees must reside in a HUBZone (though not necessarily the same HUBZone where the business has its principal office). But what happens if a business slips below the 35% requirement? After all, employees come and go all the time.

Here’s how it works.