After prevailing in its SBA OHA 8(a) appeal, a St. Louis-based communications and electrical construction contractor has been certified as a participant in the SBA’s 8(a) program.
The SBA’s decision to certify Innovet, Inc. shows the importance of pursuing an appeal of an unreasonable SBA 8(a) denial–and offers hope that the SBA is learning from its recent string of defeats at SBA OHA.
For the fourth time since December, and second time involving a woman-owned business, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has held that the SBA misevaluated an 8(a) applicant on the “social disadvantage” requirement.
In the most recent case, Black Horse Group, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-468 (2013), SBA OHA again found that the SBA committed multiple errors in its 8(a) evaluation, including holding the applicant to an impermissible high standard of proof, failing to consider all evidence in the record, and drawing erroneous conclusions from the evidence it did consider.
Following on the heels of recent SBA OHA 8(a) appeal decisions involving a disabled veteran, a physically disabled man, and a woman business owner, it is fair to ask: is the SBA’s 8(a) social disadvantage evaluation process fundamentally flawed?
For the third time in as many months, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has ruled that the SBA erroneously evaluated an 8(a) applicant’s evidence of social disadvantage.
In Innovet, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-466 (2013), SBA OHA held that the SBA’s evaluation of a disabled veteran’s 8(a) application was flawed because the SBA relied on broad, conclusory statements, failed to consider all of the veteran’s evidence of social disadvantage, and made conclusions contrary to the evidence in the record.
The Innovet case is part of a heartening trend of recent SBA OHA decisions holding that 8(a) evaluations must be fair, reasonable and thorough. The case also highlights that the SBA continues to make flawed analyses of social disadvantage, potentially preventing some eligible companies from obtaining 8(a) certification. Continue reading
The SBA failed to properly evaluate the 8(a) Program application of a small business owned by a disabled individual, according to a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA OHA’s decision in Striker Electric, SBA No. BDPE-465 (2013) comes on the heels of a December 2012 case in which SBA OHA held that the SBA had improperly evaluated the 8(a) Program application of a woman-owned business. Together, the two decisions may suggest that SBA OHA is holding the SBA to a higher standard than may previously have been the case when it comes to the SBA’s evaluation of the “social disadvantage” factor. If so, it is good news indeed for 8(a) applicants.
Anyone who works with SBA 8(a) program applications will tell you that it can be very difficult for a woman to demonstrate gender bias to the extent necessary to gain admission to the program.
But for a woman-owned small business business, the road to SBA 8(a) program admission may have just gotten a little easier, as the result of a recent decision by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. In Strategygen Co., SBA No. BDPE-460 (2012), SBA OHA held that the SBA’s 8(a) admissions office had repeatedly erred in evaluating a woman’s claims of gender bias, and ordered the woman-owned firm admitted to the 8(a) program.
A construction company with cash flow problems did not make payments on its SBA loan–and was terminated from the 8(a) program as a result.
The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in C.J. Hearne Construction Co., SBA No. BDP-449 (2012) is an important reminder that unpaid debts to Uncle Sam can be the kiss of death for 8(a) program participation.
When it comes to SBA 8(a) termination appeals, failing to follow technical filing requirements can be fatal, as one contractor recently learned the hard way.
In James Kelly Construction Co., SBA No. BDPT-459 (2012), the SBA terminated James Kelly Construction Company from the 8(a) program, alleging that the company’s owner owed outstanding taxes. The company filed a SBA 8(a) termination appeal with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, arguing that the owner did not, in fact, owe taxes.
Unfortunately, the company–which prepared and filed its appeal without a lawyer–failed to include with its appeal a copy of the SBA’s termination determination and the date the determination was received. Because both of these items are required by regulation, SBA OHA dismissed the company’s SBA 8(a) termination appeal, and subsequently denied the company’s request that SBA OHA reconsider its dismissal.
SBA OHA appeals, including 8(a) termination appeals, come with a variety of technical requirements. As the James Kelly Construction Co. case demonstrates, meeting those technical requirements is imperative, or the appeal could be lost before SBA OHA ever reaches the merits of the matter.