In October 2025, the SBA suspended an 8(a) Program contractor called ATI Government Solutions, LLC (ATI) after suspension under the FAR. ATI appealed the 8(a) suspension, and the decision shows that SBA must still support its actions with adequate evidence, and reasonable argument linked to that evidence. OHA remanded the suspension matter for more documentation from SBA.
In ATI Gov’t Sols., LLC, SBA No. BDPT-728 (May 18, 2026), OHA considered the suspension of ATI. SBA had begun an investigation into ATI back in October of 2025. On October 21, 2025, SBA’s Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO) had suspended ATI under FAR 9.407 based on the statements of a contract manager that, among other things “ATI uses its 8(a) status to act as a ‘pass-through’ for other businesses that would otherwise be ineligible for 8(a) awards” and “ATI routinely does not meet the limitations on subcontracting requirements on its 8(a) contracts.”
FAR 9.407 deals with suspension of contractors across the executive branch, rather than just through the 8(a) Program, based on “adequate evidence, pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceedings, when it has been determined that immediate action is necessary to protect the Government’s interest.” FAR 9.407-1. One example is fraud in connection with obtaining or performing contracts. FAR 9.407-2.
SBA’s SDO also questioned if “ATI may have made false statements to SBA and other government agencies” and “these statements also call into question ATI’s 8(a) eligibility, whether ATI meets the required performance of work and distribution of profits on all 8(a) contracts, and whether ATI complies with SBA’s Mentor-Protégé program.” “The SDO found that immediate need existed to suspend ATI and the individuals and that it was not in the Government’s best interest to do business with ATI and the individuals.”
On October 23, 2025, the SBA, in a parallel move, suspended ATI from the 8(a) Program under 13 C.F.R. § 124.305. This was based on multiple reasons, including: ATI acts as a “pass-through” in connection with “other businesses that would otherwise be ineligible for 8(a) awards”; “ATI routinely does not meet the limitations on subcontracting requirements on its 8(a) contracts”. SBA “concluded that as a result of these statements, ATI may have falsely obtained 8(a) certification and 8(a) contract awards.”
On appeal, ATI argued that SBA based its suspension on inadequate evidence, “based solely on uncorroborated and unverified hearsay statements allegedly made, and later recanted, on a hidden camera by a former short-term employee with no personal knowledge of Petitioner’s compliance with 8(a) Program requirements or the applicable terms and regulation in 8(a)) government contracts.”
OHA requested that SBA file “a refutation of all material facts and arguments that SBA believes are in dispute” and an Administrative Record with all relevant documents.
In response, SBA submitted “one document, a copy of the October 21, 2025, letter suspending Petitioner and the individuals under FAR 9.407.” In summary, SBA argued that ATI had been suspended under “FAR 9.407-2(a)(3) and ineligible for contract awards. A FAR suspension is adequate evidence for an 8(a) BD program suspension.”
OHA considered whether SBA had properly submitted the Administrative Record to support the 8(a) suspension, and concluded it had not. SBA argued that submitting the FAR suspension letter was sufficient. However, OHA examined the SBA suspension letter and found it wanting.
OHA noted:
The Suspension at issue does not mention the October 21st FAR suspension at all, let alone rely upon it as the reason for the Suspension. The Suspension states clearly that the reason for the Suspension is the statements made by Petitioner’s employee. However, the Agency Response here does not mention these statements and makes no effort whatever to substantiate them or to rely upon them as reasons for the Suspension. The Agency has thus stated on appeal a completely different justification for its action than that given at the time it was issued
OHA held that “The reasons for the suspension are absent from the Administrative Record as presented by the Agency here. Therefore, I must REMAND this case to SBA for a new submission providing a new, sufficiently complete administrative record to conduct a meaningful review.” The record must include all documents that the SBA relied on, including videos.
The ATI decision demonstrates that OHA will look closely at SBA’s decisions with regards to actions like suspension of companies under the 8(a) Program. SBA must base its actions on adequate evidence, and argument linked to that evidence. We will continue to monitor this decision as it reflects on both the SBA, the 8(a) Program, and how the federal government must justify its actions.
Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919.
Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook