A joint venture may be awarded an 8(a) set-aside contract so long as the SBA approves the joint venture before award.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, a procuring agency rejected a joint venture’s proposal for an 8(a) set-aside contract because the joint venture had not been approved by the SBA as of the date of proposal submission. The GAO–relying in part on input from the SBA–held that the rejection was improper.
I am back in Lawrence after a trip to the Lone Star State, where I spoke at the Fort Bliss Regional Contracting Industry Day. My presentation, “The Legal Benefits and Pitfalls of Teaming Arrangements” focused on the upsides and potential drawbacks of teaming and joint venturing on federal set-aside contracts.
A big “thank you” to Joe Conway and the team at the El Paso Community College Contract Opportunities Center for hosting this outstanding event. And of course, extra thanks to all the government employees, large businesses, and small business owners who attended.
If you weren’t able to make it to the Fort Bliss Regional Contracting Industry Day, you don’t have to be left out. Just contact me and I would be happy to provide you with a copy of the presentation.
8(a) joint ventures are not 8(a) program participants, according to a recent (and commonsense) decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In its decision, SBA rejected a joint venture’s argument that its 8(a) joint venture agreement was essentially an 8(a) program application, drawing a jurisdictional decision between 8(a) program certification and 8(a) joint venture agreement approval.
A SDVOSB joint venture was not eligible for award of a SDVOB set-aside contract because its joint venture agreement called for certain decisions to be made by supermajority vote.
As explained by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in its decision finding the SDVOSB joint venture ineligible, the supermajority provision undermined the regulatory requirement that a SDVOSB joint venture be managed by an eligible SDVOSB.