Tag Archives: SBA affiliation rules

The SBA Affiliation Rules, Trustees, and Negative Control: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Small government contractors ask me, with some frequency, whether placing a company’s stock in a trust will protect the company from affiliation under the SBA affiliation rules.

I typically answer this question with one of my own: “who will control the trust?”  I tell them that if the same people who currently control the company will continue to control it once the stock is placed in trust, the mere act of placing the company’s stock in the trust is unlikely to shield the company from affiliation with other companies controlled by those same people.

A recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirms that the ordinary SBA affiliation rules typically still apply when a company’s ownership is placed in trust.  In fact, in this size appeal decision, the company in question lost out on a contract because one of the trustees had so-called “negative control” over the company–essentially, the ability to veto the decisions of the other trustee.

Continue reading →

8(a) Mentor-Protege Joint Ventures: SBA OHA Confirms Broad Exception from Affiliation

Posted on by

I find Google Trends, which catalogs “hot searches” on any given day, rather fascinating.  Half of the hot searches seem related to one celebrity or another, but others reveal that many folks are spending their time Googling such things as “zombie apocalypse” and “national doughnut day.”  Does anyone remember what office workers actually did all day before the Internet?

If Google Trends had a government contracts subsection, “joint ventures” would be one of the trendiest of search terms.  Joint ventures are a hot topic these days, for small and large government contractors alike.  8(a) joint ventures are perhaps the trendiest of all, thanks to a special exception from the ordinary SBA affiliation rules.  In a recent SBA size appeal decision, SBA OHA confirmed that this exception from the affiliation rules is broad, even allowing an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture–potentially–to violate the so-called “three in two” rule.

Continue reading →

Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: Hiring Incumbent Employees “En Masse” Causes Affiliation

Posted on by

In the syndicated television show Crossing Over, psychic John Edward (not to be confused with former presidential candidate and tabloid mainstay John Edwards), claimed to carry on conversations with deceased relatives of audience members.  Perhaps not surprisingly, some critics have been skeptical of Mr. Edward’s supposed paranormal abilities, accusing him, according to Wikipedia, of using “prior knowledge or a wide array of quick and sometimes general guesses to create the impression of psychic ability.”  In other words, according to the critics, Crossing Over was one big sham.

Crossing Over–and the significant questions surrounding its legitimacy–is an apt metaphor for a question I commonly get from small companies planning a subcontracting relationship with an ineligible incumbent.  “Can we just hire all the prime’s employees?” they ask.  While this type of “crossing over” of employees, from ineligible incumbent subcontractor to eligible small business prime contractor, is not always impermissible, hiring too many of an ineligible incumbent’s employees–particularly managerial employees–can be seen as a sham of sorts by the SBA, as seen in one recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Continue reading →

SBA OHA: VA Mentor-Protege Program Does Not Protect Participants From Affiliation

Posted on by

My parents taught me that it’s not polite to say, “I told you so.”  Mom and Dad are big proponents of being polite, and their lessons (by and large) stuck.  For instance, even in this day and age of abbreviated text messages and quick emails written on handheld devices, I always begin and end every business email with a salutation, and end with “regards,” or something along those lines.  Unnecessary?  Perhaps.  But I like to think I am going the extra mile toward being polite.

Today, however, politeness is going to have to take a little hiatus, because I can’t resist saying, “I told you so.”  For more than a year, I have been warning small government contractors that assistance received from a mentor firm under any federal mentor-protege program other than the SBA 8(a) mentor-protege program or DoD mentor-protege program is probably not shielded from the SBA’s affiliation analysis.

Now, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has confirmed that participating in the VA’s mentor-protege program does not offer any protection from affiliation.

Continue reading →

SBA Affiliation Rules and Control: The Minority Owner Trap

Posted on by

Does a person who owns a minority share of a company “control” the company under the SBA affiliation rules?  Yes, if the company has no majority owner and the minority share owned by the individual in question is the largest, or is similar in size to, the largest other minority shares.

Get all that?  An example may help.  The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in Size Appeal of Advent Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5325 (2012), demonstrates how this rule can be a trap for the unwary.

Continue reading →

SBA Affiliation Rules and the Present Effect Rule: When Does an Agreement Arise?

Posted on by

Under the SBA affiliation rules, the SBA will apply the so-called “present effect rule” when it examines an agreement for a merger or acquisition, including an agreement in principle.  Under the present effect rule, such an agreement is presently effective with respect to the question of control–which can present a big problem under the SBA affiliation rules.

For example, if Company A has agreed to purchase Company B, the SBA deems Company A to control Company B from the moment the agreement is reached, even if the deal does not close until months later.  This makes Companies A and B affiliates from the date their agreement is reached for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules.

The present effect rule makes sense, but when does an “agreement” arise for purposes of the  rule?  The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals examined this issue in Size Appeal of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5324 (2012).   If you are in discussions or negotiations for a merger or acquisition, and are worried about potential affiliation, SBA OHA’s decision will leave you breathing a sigh of relief.

Continue reading →

SBA Size Protests and the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule: The Task Order Loophole

Posted on by

The tax code is famous (or infamous) for perceived loopholes, but the IRS isn’t the only regulatory agency with a loophole in its regulations.   The SBA’s affiliation rules contain—or at least used to contain (more on that later)—a gaping loophole when it comes to Multiple Award Task Order Contracts, or MATOCs, and the ostensible subcontractor rule.

Continue reading →