It’s a refrain that my colleagues and I have often heard: if you’re a franchisee, it can be really, really hard–perhaps almost impossible–to be verified as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business.
A recent case demonstrates the difficulties in obtaining SDVOSB status as a franchisee. In the case, the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the Center for Verification and Eligibility had correctly denied a company’s SDVOSB application because, in the eyes of the CVE and SBA, the terms of the franchise agreement impeded the veteran’s control of the company.
A proposed rule from SBA will make changes to the SDVOSB rules. SBA has modified its rules allowing surviving spouses to continue owning Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses after the veteran owner has passed away. This should provide some help to spouses of disabled veterans. SBA has updated a few dollar thresholds as well.
The organizational documents for a business seeking certification under a SBA socio-economic program can play an important part in a company demonstrating its eligibility under the SBA’s requirement for control by the company’s owners, such as a service-disabled veteran or disadvantaged owner. Unlike some of the SBA’s requirements for eligibility, the manner in which a program applicant or participant might run afoul of this requirement are not always obvious. Typical provisions in the organizational documents that, under “non-SBA” circumstances may seem innocuous, may unintentionally undermine the disadvantaged owner’s requirement of showing of unconditional ownership and control.
Sometimes, task force meetings are held just for the sake of having meetings. However, on June 2nd and 3rd the Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development (IATF) and Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs (ACVBA) met to discuss important issues facing small businesses. This shed much needed light on the issues fast approaching and what steps the SBA needs to take.
The main topic of discussion was the pending CVE transfer. The transfer, as I soon found out, is deceptively complex. In a separate point, SBA noted that the Biden Administration announced it will use the purchase power of the federal government to make more awards to disadvantaged businesses, raising the target from 5% to 10%.
The star of the show, however, was the CVE transfer. So, what does this mean for you?
The federal government spends more than $20 billion annually on contracts with service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. But the rules governing SDVOSB eligibility can be complex and confusing – starting with the fact that the government runs not one, but two SDVOSB programs.
On January 14, join me for a webinar, hosted by our friends at Govology, covering the ins-and-outs of Uncle Sam’s SDVOSB programs. In this session, I will demystify the key SDVOSB eligibility requirements in plain English and provide an update on some major pending changes to the SDVOSB programs. It’s easy to register: just follow this link. I hope to see you (virtually, anyway) on January 14!
The House and Senate have agreed to eliminate service-disabled veteran-owned small business self-certification and adopt a government-wide SDVOSB certification requirement, while transferring control of the certification process from the VA to the SBA.
The Conference Report on the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act would require government-wide SDVOSB certification (eventually) and transfer control of the the Center for Verification and Evaluation from the VA to the SBA. Assuming the President signs the bill into law (which, unlike the typical NDAA, remains to seen), SDVOSB self-certification–which is still the law for non-VA contracts–is on its way out.
Control over a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business can be held by multiple service-disabled veterans. Having control reside in multiple individuals can make things a little more complicated, though. SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals recently examined a situation where multiple service-disabled veterans shared control of a company, but did not have a united front when responding to information requests concerning a company’s eligibility.