A SBA size protest related to a sealed bid must be filed within five business days of bid opening–and the bid protest rules under FAR Part 33 do not provide for a longer protest window.
In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that, when it comes to size protests, the timeliness rules for bid protests (which allow many protests to be filed within 10 days after the basis of protest was known or should have been known) simply do not apply.
To determine whether ostensible subcontractor affiliation exists between a prime contractor and its subcontractor, the SBA must use the prime contractor’s final proposal revision.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals overturned an SBA Area Office affiliation determination that did not contemplate an offeror’s final proposal.
Government contractors are expected to be aware of appeal deadlines even if an agency does not mention those deadlines in its decision notifications.
As one contractor recently discovered, a size appeal with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals must be filed within the regulatory time frame–and no extension will be granted if the SBA does not notify the potential appellant of the deadline.
When the SBA found a subcontractor to be affiliated with its prime contractor under the ostensible subcontractor rule, the subcontractor could not appeal the SBA’s finding to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In a recent size appeal decision, OHA held that a subcontractor lacks the ability to file a size appeal because the subcontractor is not directly affected by the size determination.
A size appeal filed with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals may be submitted by email, but it is up to the appellant to verify that its email was received.
As demonstrated in a recent size appeal decision, OHA will dismiss an appeal that is not received by OHA within 15 days of the appellant’s receipt of a size determination–even if the appellant attempted to send the size appeal by email during the 15-day window.
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.
A business was not engaged in “manufacturing” within the meaning of the SBA’s regulations where the firm provided another entity with specifications and financing, and the second entity produced the end item being acquired by the government.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, being a “manufacturer” means engaging in the primary activities of transforming substances into an end item. Merely providing specifications and financing doesn’t do the trick.