The owner of a former 8(a) program participant has been sentenced to 21 months in prison in connection with an 8(a) program “pass-through” scheme.
Under the plea agreement, the former 8(a) program owner also agreed to three years of supervised release and the forfeiture of $554,541.07.
A former 8(a) program participant has agreed to pay nearly $8 million to settle allegations of 8(a) program fraud.
According to a Department of Justice press release, LB&B Associates Inc. will pay $7.8 million to resolve claims that it improperly obtained 8(a) certification (and 8(a) contracts) even though it was not controlled by a disadvantaged individual.
An 8(a) Program applicant may challenge the SBA’s denial of its application in federal court if the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
According to a recent OHA decision, although OHA’s own jurisdiction in 8(a) denial matters is limited, a rejected applicant “is not utterly without recourse” because relief can be sought in court.
An 8(a) contract was properly awarded on a sole source basis to a tribally-owned entity, even though the contract was a follow-on to a competitive 8(a) set-aside award.
In a recent decision, the GAO deferred to the SBA’s interpretation of the 8(a) program regulations–which, according to the SBA, allow such sole source awards.
An honest mistake made in a company’s 8(a) Program application may not support termination of the company from the 8(a) Program.
In a recent decision, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA could not validly terminate an 8(a) participant for submitting false information in the 8(a) application because the SBA had not considered whether the 8(a) participant honestly, and reasonably, believed that she was not required to report the information.
The limitations on subcontracting would undergo sweeping changes under a recent SBA proposal.
On December 29, the SBA issued a proposed rule to enact the changes implemented by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013–including a thorough re-write of the way that compliance with the subcontracting limits is calculated and enforced.
The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging the SBA’s refusal to approve a joint venture for an 8(a) set-aside contract.
In a recent decision, OHA dismissed an appeal filed by an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture, in which the joint venture attempted to challenge the SBA’s decision not to approve the joint venture to pursue an 8(a) set-aside.