A firm will not qualify as a small business for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant if it does not meet the SBIR program’s regulatory ownership and control requirements–and those requirements can be confusing.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals explained how the SBIR program’s ownership and control requirements work in practice.
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.
Only the SBA has the power to grant an extension to the short time deadline for a company to respond to a SBA size protest.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, although the SBA’s practice is to require the procuring agency to grant a concurrent extension, the procuring agency’s agreement alone–in the absence of a corresponding SBA extension–will not permit a protested company to file a late response.
A company’s President was deemed to control the company for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules, even though the company’s majority shareholder had the unilateral right to remove the President from office at any time.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that a company’s President exercised “critical influence” over the company, and that the President’s influence was not rendered illusory simply because the 100% owner could remove the President from office.
An 8(a) protege and its mentor were not affiliated with one another, despite forming eight joint ventures over a four-year period–and winning 15 contracts with those joint ventures.
In a recent size appeal case, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld the decision of the SBA Area Office, which found that the mentor and protege were not affiliated despite their substantial history of joint venturing.
A small business was affiliated with companies owned by the business owner’s father and siblings, based on the family relationship and the companies’ ongoing history of doing business together.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the small business had not successfully rebutted the regulatory presumption that companies owned by close family members are affiliated, because the small business had earned substantial revenues from the alleged affiliates, and intended to issue a subcontract to both affiliates with respect to the procurement at issue.
For the purposes of the ostensible subcontractor rule, a firm’s small business size is determined as of the date of final proposal revisions.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, any changes to the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractor made after the date of final proposal have little to no bearing in determining compliance with the ostensible subcontractor rule.