Tag Archives: SBA

GAO: Subcontracting Uncertainty Means No HUBZone Price Preference Required

Posted on by

An agency properly refused to apply the HUBZone price preference when the agency determined HUBZone company’s proposal was unclear as to whether the company would comply with the subcontracting limits set forth in the FAR’s HUBZone price preference clause.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the Defense Logistics Agency reasonably refused to apply the HUBZone price preference in a procurement for supplies because the HUBZone company’s proposal suggested that HUBZone companies might perform less than 50% of the manufacturing costs.

Continue reading →

SBA Certificate Of Competency Cannot Cure Incomplete Proposal

Posted on by

The SBA’s Certificate of Competency procedures cannot be used to cure a small business’s incomplete proposal.

In a recent bid protest decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the procuring agency could not lawfully cure a firm’s omission of mandatory proposal information by submitting the matter to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency.

Continue reading →

Small Business Set-Asides Not Required For Simplified Acquisitions Outside U.S., Says GAO

Posted on by

Small business set-asides are not required for simplified acquisitions conducted outside the United States and its outlying areas, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.

In Latvian Connection General Trading and Construction LLC, B-408633 (Sept. 18, 2013), the GAO rejected the protester’s contention–which was backed by the SBA–that simplified acquisitions must be set-aside whenever the “rule of two” is satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that the procurement is outside the United States.

Continue reading →

8(a) Joint Ventures Are Not 8(a) Program Participants, Says SBA OHA

Posted on by

8(a) joint ventures are not 8(a) program participants, according to a recent (and commonsense) decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.

In its decision, SBA rejected a joint venture’s argument that its 8(a) joint venture agreement was essentially an 8(a) program application, drawing a jurisdictional decision between 8(a) program certification and 8(a) joint venture agreement approval.

Continue reading →

SBA Doesn’t Fix Incorrect NAICS Code Regulation; Protester Pays The Price

Posted on by

A contractor’s NAICS code appeal was dismissed as untimely, even though it was filed within the time frame expressly established in an SBA regulation.

In a recent decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed its earlier ruling that a NAICS code appeal must be filed within ten calendar days, despite an SBA regulation establishing a filing deadline of ten business days.

SBA OHA’s decision isn’t surprising in light of its prior ruling.  However, in my mind, the decision raises a question of fundamental fairness: should protesters continue to be penalized for the SBA’s failure to fix its conflicting timeliness regulations?

Continue reading →

After Successful 8(a) Appeal, Veteran-Owned Firm Gains 8(a) Certification

Posted on by

After prevailing in its SBA OHA 8(a) appeal, a St. Louis-based communications and electrical construction contractor has been certified as a participant in the SBA’s 8(a) program.

The SBA’s decision to certify Innovet, Inc. shows the importance of pursuing an appeal of an unreasonable SBA 8(a) denial–and offers hope that the SBA is learning from its recent string of defeats at SBA OHA.

Continue reading →

Another 8(a) Appeal Upheld: Is The 8(a) Evaluation Process Fundamentally Flawed?

Posted on by

For the fourth time since December, and second time involving a woman-owned business, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals has held that the SBA misevaluated an 8(a) applicant on the “social disadvantage” requirement.

In the most recent case, Black Horse Group, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-468 (2013), SBA OHA again found that the SBA committed multiple errors in its 8(a) evaluation, including holding the applicant to an impermissible high standard of proof, failing to consider all evidence in the record, and drawing erroneous conclusions from the evidence it did consider.

Following on the heels of recent SBA OHA 8(a) appeal decisions involving a disabled veteran, a physically disabled man, and a woman business owner, it is fair to ask: is the SBA’s 8(a) social disadvantage evaluation process fundamentally flawed?

Continue reading →