Last month, the SBA moved to edit its regulations, taking a red pen to its current rules governing Small Disadvantaged Businesses (or SDBs), as described in the Federal Register. This blog post will highlight what the new rule will mean for current SDBs—and how businesses can become eligible for SDB subcontractor status under the new rule. While the SDB program is still alive and kicking, the rules will be simplified to eliminate a lot of language that is simply no longer applicable.Continue reading
Update 5/14/2020: Since this post was originally published, SBA’s website has clarified when SBA Certification will be available and when Self-Certification will end. The post has been updated to reflect this information.
On Monday, the Small Business Administration will publish a Final Rule updating the certification methods for businesses applying for and participating in the Women-Owned Small Business program. The new Rule will also impose new thresholds for demonstrating economic disadvantage, impacting applicants not only for the WOSB program, but also the 8(a) Business Development program.Continue reading
The DoD recently issued proposed revisions to the DFARS 8(a) nonmanufacturer rule, found in 48 C.F.R. § 252.219-7010. The proposed revisions would update the admittedly “outdated text regarding the nonmanufacturer rule with updated text” that reflects SBA’s May 2016 final rule implementing the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
While the changes are only for 8(a) concerns, the differences between the existing DFARS and proposed change are significant nonetheless.Continue reading
Clients who own businesses under one of SBA’s socioeconomic designations have often asked us, what happens after I’m gone? Meaning, if the key owner becomes incapacitated or dies, what happens to the set-aside designation for future contracts and ongoing contracts, and are there restrictions on transferring the ownership interest?
While we can’t answer all their questions, my recent article in the March 2019 issue of Contract Management Magazine (the monthly publication of the National Contract Management Association), outlines some of the key issues and answers from the government contracting perspective.
The magazine has nicely allowed us to reprint the article. Click here to read!
When an incumbent contractor’s general manager got sick and had to quit, the contractor promptly found a replacement, which the agency approved. But there was still one problem: the incumbent had already proposed to use the same general manager for the next contract.
According to GAO, the agency was right to eliminate the contractor from the competition, even though the agency knew that the contractor had a new general manager and had, in fact, approved the replacement.
SBA’s regulations provide that an 8(a) program participant that no longer is owned or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged person can be terminated from the 8(a) program. But the decision to terminate is not one to be made lightly: SBA must make sure that it not only has evidence in support of its termination decision, it must also explain how that evidence demonstrates its conclusions.
This requirement was at issue in a recent court decision that found an SBA 8(a) program termination decision to be based on “numerous erroneous assumptions” and “unsupported conclusions, not substantial evidence.”
The SBA was not required to conduct an “adverse impact” analysis before placing a procurement under the 8(a) program because the company requesting the adverse impact analysis was not a small business under the incumbent contract.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the incumbent contractor–which, according to the SBA, had violated the ostensible subcontractor affiliation rule–was not entitled to insist on an adverse impact analysis.