Tag Archives: SDVOSB joint ventures

GAO Sides with VA, Joint Venture Must Be SDVOSB Eligible at Time of Award

Posted on by

Here at SmallGovCon, we spend a lot of time studying (and talking about) the various small business federal set-aside programs. As a result, a lot of our focus is dedicated to SBA’s regulations governing these programs—after all, it is the agency that was created by the Small Business Act to issue and implement precisely these regulations. So, it may be tempting for small business federal contractors to focus on those SBA rules and think, so long as they have complied with all the nuances they contain, their business is eligible for these sorts of set-aside contracts.

As one joint venture recently found out the hard way, however, other agencies have their own unique sets of regulations that can impact set-aside contracts as well. One such agency is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which has its own body of rules governing VA procurements—the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (“VAAR”). One of the programs that the VA implements is the Veterans First Contracting Program (“Vets First”), which interacts quite a bit with SBA’s SDVOSB program. As a result of the overlap, potential offerors on VA contracts set aside for SDVOSBs must ensure they comply with both VA and SDVOSB regulations, and this is where the protester in Potomac Valor Healthcare-2, LLC, B-423195.2 (Aug. 12, 2026) ran into trouble. GAO’s decision in the case sheds some light on the way VA’s specific requirements create additional obligations for SDVOSB joint ventures, and serves as a cautionary tale to other prospective offerors who may find themselves in a similar situation. In short, the protester was SDVOSB compliant and registered in VetCert at the time of offer, but erroneously believed that it did not have to maintain that same level of compliance at the time of award. GAO found that, as the SDVOSB partner of the joint venture was no longer small at the time of award (a fact reflected in VetCert), the JV could not receive the award.

Continue reading →

Skin of its Teeth: Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Survives SDVOSB Status Protest Despite Missing Required Provisions in Joint Venture

Posted on by

For the most part, the rules on joint ventures under SBA are very similar. the various regulations for small business, 8(a), SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBzone joint ventures are so similar in fact that they are almost identical. But they are not perfectly identical. There are a few quirks that distinguish the regulations from the others, and one such quirk can cost contractors dearly if they are not careful. In today’s post, we will review an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) case in which one SDVOSB nearly fell victim to this quirk to show what this quirk is, and how you can avoid the same.

Continue reading →

OHA Reminder: Compliance with SBA Joint Venture Requirements is Determined at Final Proposal Revisions

Posted on by

In most size and status protests, SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) will determine an offeror’s eligibility for a procurement as of the date of initial offer including price for that procurement. Indeed, with regards to SDVOSBs and VOSBs specifically, 13 C.F.R § 134.1003(e)(1) states that “[i]f the VOSB or SDVOSB status protest pertains to a procurement, the Judge will determine a protested concern’s eligibility as a VOSB or SDVOSB as of the date of its initial offer or response which includes price for a competitively awarded VOSB/SDVOSB contract, order, or agreement, and as of the date of award for any sole source VOSB or SDVOSB award.” But there is an important exception to this rule (something another company found out regarding its mentor-protégé joint venture recently) in that very clause, and, recently, OHA pointed this out in a GSA-led protest of an SDVOSB joint venture (VSBC-459-P, January 15, 2026). Today, we’ll look at that decision.

Continue reading →

Extraordinary Actions v. Day-to-Day Decisions for Joint Ventures: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Back in 2020, we discussed an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decision stating that the managing venturer must control every aspect of the joint venture. This position, which we questioned in that article, has changed since that time, and we explored the changes to the regulatory language in question not long thereafter. But this regulatory language was still vague. Since that time, there has been much case law development. The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held in 2022, “[a] minority owner’s control over “extraordinary” actions, such as actions intended to protect the investment of minority shareholders, will not result in a finding of negative control” and applied this idea to a populated joint venture. Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1279, 2022 WL 1231428 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2022), aff’d, No. 2022-1601, 2022 WL 17576348 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). It now appears, fairly established at this point, that non-managing venturers can have a say in what can best be described as “extraordinary actions.” These are the sorts of decisions that can completely change the trajectory of the joint venture. But contractors must still be very careful in giving the non-managing venturer a say in the joint venture’s decisions. As one firm learned the hard way in a recent COFC case, a joint venture with too many actions controllable by the non-managing venturer may end up ineligible for set-asides. Here, we explore this decision.

Continue reading →

Joint Venture Agreement Fails for Lack of Detail–And Too Much Detail on Venturer Control

Posted on by

A joint venture agreement must closely follow Small Business Administration rules to be compliant for a small business set-aside. And SBA interprets those rules strictly. If they are not followed, a joint venture that was up for award, can see that award go up in smoke. Here, SBA said that a joint venture involving a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) was not compliant because it was both (a) not specific enough and (b) too detailed in providing for oversight of actions of the JV partners.

Continue reading →

Check Your Joint Venture Agreements: Under-the-Radar SBA Change Could Cause Problems

Posted on by

Joint ventures operating under the SBA’s All Small Mentor-Protege Program may need to adjust their joint venture agreements because of a little-noticed change to SBA’s joint venture rules.

In its recent final rule, effective November 16, SBA amended two of the mandatory requirements for mentor-protege joint ventures pursuing small business set-aside contracts. SBA did not make corresponding changes to the joint venture rules for SBA’s four major socioeconomic programs–meaning that a joint venture agreement that complies with the small business set-aside rules may not be valid if the joint venture pursues 8(a), SDVOSB/VOSB, HUBZone or WOSB/EDWOSB contracts (and vice versa).

Continue reading →

Reminder: Joint Venture Agreements Must Include Required Provisions

Posted on by

It’s no secret that federal contract opportunities are becoming more and more competitive. But as we’ve previously gushed, small businesses enjoy a tremendous tool for enhancing their competitiveness: participating in a joint venture with another company.

Properly formed, a joint venture allows its participants to augment their capabilities and experiences in the quest to win (and successfully perform) a particular opportunity. But there’s the trick—to enjoy the benefits of a joint venture, that joint venture must meet various regulatory requirements. One misstep and the joint venture might not be eligible for the award.

A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision shows the importance of making sure these regulatory requirements are met.

Continue reading →