Tag Archives: SBA affiliation rules

8(a) Mentor-Protege Joint Venture Agreements: Details Matter, Court Says

Posted on by

An 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture was not entitled to take advantage of the special mentor-protege exception from affiliation because the joint venture agreement lacked adequate detail.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the SBA had reasonably determined the joint venture to be a large business because the joint venture agreement did not sufficiently address certain requirements.  The Court’s decision should be a warning for all 8(a) mentor-protege joint ventures: details matter.

Continue reading →

SBA Affiliation Rules: “Inter-Affiliate Transactions” Exception Is Narrow

Posted on by

Under the SBA’s affiliation rules, the so-called “inter-affiliate transactions” exception applies only where the companies in question would be eligible to file a consolidated tax return.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the inter-affiliate transactions exception does not apply when affiliated companies are ineligible to file a consolidated tax return–a result that seems to authorize “double counting” of affiliated companies’ revenues in the context of SBA size determinations.

Continue reading →

VA CVE Verification Does Not Provide Affiliation Shield, Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

Even if the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation has found that a service-disabled veteran “unconditionally” controls a SDVOSB, the SBA may nonetheless determine that other individuals or entities also control the company within the meaning of the SBA’s affiliation rules.

As demonstrated by a recent decision of the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, VA CVE verification does not shield a SDVOSB from an adverse SBA affiliation determination, even if that determination is based on a finding that non-veterans control the company.

Continue reading →

Ostensible Subcontractor Affiliation: SBA Proposes Exception For “Similarly Situated” Entities

Posted on by

The ostensible subcontractor affiliation rule would be modified to include an exception for “similarly situated” entities serving as subcontractors, if a recent rule change proposed by the SBA goes into effect.

Under the SBA’s proposal, a small business would be exempt from ostensible subcontractor affiliation with another small business for a small business set-aside contract, an 8(a) participant with another 8(a) participant for an 8(a) set-aside contract, and so on.

Continue reading →

Family Relationships & Affiliation: SBA Proposes Clarifications

Posted on by

The SBA’s regulations regarding affiliation between companies controlled by close family members would be clarified under a proposed rule introduced on December 29.

Under the SBA’s current affiliation regulations, companies controlled by family members may be presumed to be affiliated, but the regulation leaves it to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals to determine how close the family relationship must be for the presumption to apply.  The proposed rule would clarify exactly when the presumption applies.

Continue reading →

SBA 8(a) JVs: No OHA Appeals Of Disapprovals

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

8(a) Mentor-Protege JVs: Faulty JV Agreement Results In Affiliation

Posted on by

An 8(a) program protege was deemed affiliated with its mentor–and ineligible for a small business set-aside contract–because the joint venture agreement between the mentor and protege failed to comply with certain mandatory 8(a) joint venture requirements.

In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals concluded that an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture was not entitled to take advantage of the special exception from affiliation because of the flaws in its joint venture agreement.  OHA’s decision is an important reminder to 8(a) mentors and proteges of the critical importance of strictly complying with the 8(a) joint venture regulation.

Continue reading →