If you are part of a joint venture between a small protege and its large mentor under the SBA’s Mentor-Protege Program, heads up: the SBA recently amended its list of mandatory requirements for joint venture agreements to cover what happens to funds left over in the joint venture bank account at the end of a project.
Like the revised recordkeeping rules I discussed in an earlier post, the new required provision only applies to mentor-protege joint ventures pursuing small business set-aside contracts–not to JVs seeking 8(a), SDVOSB/VOSB, WOSB/EDWOSB or HUBZone work. Confusingly (and again, like the recordkeeping rules), SBA’s decision to change only the small business set-aside regulation, 13 C.F.R 125.8, means that the same joint venture agreement may not be valid for both small business set-aside contracts and socioeconomic contracts.
The VA’s Verification Assistance Brief for SDVOSB and VOSB joint ventures flat-out misstates the law regarding the manner in which joint venture profits must be split.
SDVOSBs and VOSBs often rely on Verification Assistance Briefs to guide them through the CVE verification process, and CVE analysts sometimes use Verification Assistance Briefs, too. Which begs the question: how many CVE-verified joint ventures are legally invalid?
If an SDVOSB was eligible at the time of its initial offer for a multiple-award contract, the SDVOSB ordinarily retains its eligibility for task and delivery orders issued under that contract, unless a contracting officer requests a new SDVOSB certification in connection with a particular order.
In a recent SDVOSB appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that regulatory changes adopted by the SBA in 2013 allow an SDVOSB to retain its eligibility for task and delivery orders issued under a multiple-award contract, absent a request for recertification.