SBA Denies 8(a) Status Based on Applicant’s Ability to Successfully Overcome Gender-Based Discrimination in Her Field

OHA recently affirmed the 8(a) status denial of a 100% woman-owned small business performing in the historically male-dominated renewable energy field. The applicant—who SBA called an “advocate” and “mentor” to women in the industry—detailed specific instances of gender-based-discrimination that plagued her education, employment, and career.

But SBA was unmoved, instead focusing its analysis on the applicant’s triumph over these obstacles—apparently an indication that she was not socially disadvantaged in the first place. Unfortunately, this perplexing holding does fall in line with many past SBA denials of women-owned companies for 8(a) status.

Continue reading

Why Does the 8(a) Program Penalize Older Business Owners?

The 8(a) Program can offer incredible opportunities: sole source contracts, set-aside competitions, mentor-protege relationships, SBA business training and much more.

But for business owners older than 59 1/2, getting admitted to the 8(a) Program can be very difficult: unlike their younger counterparts, funds these owners have saved in traditional retirement accounts will likely count against the 8(a) Program’s $250,000 adjusted net worth cap.

How is this fair? (Spoiler alert: in my opinion, it ain’t).

Continue reading

SBA OIG Recommends Improved Oversight of 8(a) Continuing Eligibility

Last year, we wrote about the SBA’s Office of Inspector General’s concerns with the SBA’s review of potential 8(a) participants’ eligibility. In this report, the OIG made three recommendations aimed at improving to verify applicants’ eligibility.

Just last week, the OIG released a new report analyzing the 8(a) Program. This report picks up where the earlier report left off—it addressed several issues in the SBA’s evaluation of participants’ continuing eligibility.

The results of this report are rather alarming: based on its review, the OIG identified almost $127 million in 8(a) set-aside awards to ineligible firms.

Continue reading

8(a) Program: Participant Terminated for Not Paying Subcontractor

An 8(a) Program participant was terminated from the 8(a) Program for failing to pay a subcontractor.

According to the SBA, the non-payment reflected poorly on the 8(a) company’s character–and “good character” is a prerequisite for 8(a) Program participation.

Continue reading

5 Things You Should Know: 8(a) Program Eligibility

Editor’s Note: You can find our updated post on 8(a) Program Eligibility here.

In a recent post, we discussed the basics about SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program. This follow-up posts discusses 8(a) eligibility requirements in greater detail.

To qualify for the 8(a) Program, a firm must be a small business that is unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more socially- and economically-disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and citizens of the United States and that demonstrates a potential for success.

What does this really mean? Here are five things you should know about 8(a) Program eligibility.

Continue reading

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case: 8(a) Program Survives Constitutional Challenge

In a big victory for proponents of the 8(a) program, the Supreme Court of the United States has denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by Rothe Development, Inc.

Consequently, the decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit finding the statutes establishing 8(a) program to be constitutional will be allowed to stand.

Continue reading

8(a) Program: Will Supreme Court Take Rothe’s Constitutionality Case?

The continuing legal battle over the constitutionality of the 8(a) program’s “socially disadvantaged” criteria may be on its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last September, we covered the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Rothe Development, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense, 836 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2016), where a two-judge majority of the court concluded the 8(a) program did not violate Rothe’s equal protection rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing a racial classification.

Now, Rothe has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari—a formal request that the Supreme Court review (and overturn) the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

Continue reading