The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals has overturned yet another SBA 8(a) Program denial decision–at least the fifth such instance since December 2012.
As with the four previous cases, SBA OHA’s most recent 8(a) appeal decision indicates that the SBA improperly evaluated the applicant’s evidence of social disadvantage, both by misapplying the regulatory test for social disadvantage and by requiring the applicant to meet a higher standard of proof than called for by law.
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 proposal submitted on behalf of an 8(a) company claimed that the company had performed a $3 million NASA contract even though no such contract existed, according to a recent report issued by the SBA Office of Inspector General. As alleged in the SBA OIG report, the same honesty-challenged 8(a) company claimed to have 33 employees, even though it never had more than two.
Perhaps it is little wonder that the company in question is alleged to have passed through nearly 100% of its work on several 8(a) set-asides to its non-8(a) subcontractor.