The SBA 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture exception from affiliation applies to non-8(a) contracts, so long as the joint venture meets the 8(a) regulatory requirements.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the SBA Area Office erred by deeming a mentor and its protege affiliated for purposes of a non-8(a) contract, without considering whether the joint venture qualified for the mentor-protege exception to the ordinary SBA affiliation rules.
A prime contractor was not economically dependent on its subcontractor for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules because a prime contractor “has the power to choose whatever subcontractor it desires.”
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals stopped short of holding that a prime contractor could never be economically dependent on a subcontractor, but SBA OHA’s decision indicates that if such dependence ever existed, it would be in an unusual case.
“Common investments” affiliation under the SBA affiliation rules can occur when the SBA believes that two individuals’ common investments in multiple companies will cause the individuals in question to act with a common purpose.
A recent SBA OHA size appeal decision shows how the common investments rule can work in practice–in this case, resulting in the business in question being deemed affiliated with several other companies.
When it comes to the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor rule, managing a contract, by itself, is not enough to avoid affiliation.
As demonstrated in a recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, a small business and its subcontractor violate the ostensible subcontractor rule whenever the subcontractor will perform the primary and vital work required under the prime contract–even if the small business will perform the management function.
In today’s segment of our BlogTalk radio show, Position to Win, Guy Timberlake, Larry Allen and I discuss:
Tune in to Position to Win every two weeks for more insights, commentary, and wisecracks.
Economic dependence affiliation under the SBA’s affiliation rules can be created by a single ongoing contract, according to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In a recent size appeal decision, SBA OHA held that a single contract amounting to more than 90% of an 8(a) applicant’s revenues over two years resulted in economic dependence affiliation.
The SBA misevaluated a joint venture by basing its ineligibility decision on the joint venture’s revenues, rather than determining whether each joint venturer, individually, qualified as a small business, according to a recent decision of the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.
SBA OHA’s decision highlights what I like to call the “individual size treatment rule,” a special regulation requiring the SBA to deem a joint venture “small” under certain circumstances, even when the combined sizes of the joint venture’s members exceed the applicable size standard.