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.
8(a) Program improvements are needed to allow more disadvantaged firms to receive 8(a) contracts, according to a recent report issued by the SBA Office of Inspector General.
In its report, the SBA OIG credits the SBA with positive steps taken to improve the 8(a) Program, but says that more must be done to ensure that 8(a) business development assistance reaches more 8(a) Program participants.
A NAICS code appeal can be filed even after a SBA District Office accepts the procurement for competition in the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program.
In a recent decision, SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals rejected the argument that acceptance of a procurement into the 8(a) Program results in the approval of the NAICS code assigned to that procurement, thus preventing subsequent NAICS code appeals. Had SBA OHA reached the opposite conclusion, the decision might have effectively excluded 8(a) contracts from the reach of traditional NAICS code appeals.
Compliance with the limitations on subcontracting are not adequately being monitored by the contracting officers responsible for 8(a) contracts, according to a recent GAO report.
After reviewing a representative sample of ten 8(a) contracts, the GAO determined that contracting officers effectively monitored subcontracting limit compliance on two of those contracts. In other cases, agency contracting officers failed to effectively monitor compliance, even in situations presenting a heightened risk of potential violations–such as where ineligible incumbents were serving as subcontractors.
A Maryland man has pleaded guilty in an 8(a) fraud case involving a company that received more than $52 million in 8(a) contracts to which it was not entitled.
According to a Department of Justice press release, Vernon Smith pleaded guilty to charges that he (not the company’ s disadvantaged majority owner) exercised complete control over the company’s day-to-day management and long term decision making.