|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Recent SBA OHA Decisions (2016-Present) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Click on any heading to link to the list of those decisions, and then click on any case name to link directly to the decision. Please note that, of the decisions below, those that are published on this website are not necessarily exact duplicates of the SBA's official opinions and may differ from the originals in pagination, line breaks, font styles, and other formatting details. See also SBA OHA Decisions (2007-2015)
Size NAICS VET, VSBC & CVE 8(a) BDP SDBA WBC, WOSB & EDWOSB
Most Recently Published Size Decisions
Size Appeal of Saalex Corp. d/b/a Saalex Solutions, Inc., SBA No. 6274 (2024) (for unrestricted, unpriced IDIQ MAC, version of 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a)(1)(iv) applicable at the time stated size to be determined at the date of original award) Size Appeal of McLaughlin Research Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6273 (2024) (although arguments raised by appellant, itself, on appeal are meritless, version of 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a)(1)(iv) effective at the relevant time for this appeal stated that size under for unpriced IDIQ MAC was to be determined at time of award rather than at time of order so case is remanded to SBA to examine under the correct version of the reg) Size Appeal of Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., SBA No. SIZ-6271 (2024) (challenged firm was not required to recertify its size for set-aside task order award under former version of SBA regs applicable at that time; there was no change in controlling ownership necessitating a recertification because owner retained majority interest) Size Appeal of HealthVerity, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6266 (2024) (grants appeal in part; remands to Area Office to investigate further whether CEO and several co-founders of challenged firm were former officers or key employees of Microsoft which would create affiliation under under newly organized concern rule; Area Office not required to further investigate identity of interest allegation that the protester made only generally and without specific evidence) Size Appeal of BC Technical Center, LLC d/b/a BC Engineered Products, SBA No. SIZ-6263 (2024) (Area Office erred in finding affiliation via the newly organized concern rule because the challenged firm was not spun off from the alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Sanford Federal, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6261 (2024) (even if original size protest was non-specific, protested firm did not (i) raise this argument to the Area Office, (ii) respond to the protest allegations or (iii) submit requested information; therefore, failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a small business) Size Appeal of Global Pacific Design Builders, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6260 (2023) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as non-specific because it only alleged facts concerning protested firm's size after the date on which it was required to self-certify) Size Appeal of Forward Slope, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6258 (2023) (Area Office incorrectly concluded that a firm which represented itself as small in connection with underlying MAC contract did not have to re-certify for purposes of a task order solicitation that did not require recertification when the firm had been acquired by another firm before the task order solicitation's proposals were due Size Appeal of Portacool, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6251 (2023) (Area Office correctly drew adverse inference from challenged firm's failure to provide relevant information requested by office concerning possible affiliates and the ownership of the company it claimed to be owned by) Size Appeal of Daniels Bldg. Co., SBA No. SIZ-6250 (2023) (Area Office properly dismissed as speculative protest alleging that firms “have not fulfilled their obligations as Mentor and Protégé and have no intention or ability to fulfill those requirements on the project at issue" without supporting evidence) Size Appeal of Federal Performance Management Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6246 (2023) (upholds Area Office's determination that the members of a joint venture should be treated as affiliates because the joint venture submitted its offer on the contested procurement more than two years after the JV's first award as a joint venture) Size Appeal of VORAGO Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6242 (2023) (in determining it was other than small, Area Office erroneously relied on ambiguous evidence on a website and a letter not shown to appellant to which it was not given an opportunity to respond rather than evidence submitted by appellant) Size Appeal of Allegheny Science & Technology Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6241 (2023) (Area Office correctly determined pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.1004(a)(3) that protest against size of firm issued BPA under long-term GSA schedule contract was untimely because such protests are treated as protests on the underlying contract) Size Appeal of Aldevra, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6240 (2023) (denies request to submit new evidence because it was available, but not submitted at time of original size determination; denies request for hearing because unnecessary to resolution of protest; Area Office conducted reasonable investigation in determining two firms had taken adequate steps to disentangle themselves from prior affiliation) Size Appeal of LS3, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6239 (2023) (dismisses protest as moot because OHA previously decided case involving same protester, same procurement, and same issue: VSBC Protest of New Directions Technologies, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-299-P (2023)) Size Appeal of GC&V Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6236 (2023) (Area Office correctly used ownership percentage to calculate affiliated firm's receipt from joint ventures of which it was a member, which rendered affiliated firm (and, thus, appellant) other than small even after deducting amounts already accounted for in affiliated firm's tax returns to avoid double-counting) Size Appeals of Apogee Group, LLC, and RPM Partners, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6232 (2023) (denies size protest because small business prime could delegate most responsibilities in construction contract so long as it maintained management and portfolio oversight) Size Appeal of Daniels Bldg. Co., SBA No. SIZ-6231 (2023) (typographical error in agency's original written notice of apparently successful offeror did not excuse firm's failure to protest size within five days of bid opening, especially where firm attended bid opening) Size Appeal of YKJY, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6220 (2023) (appeal filed with OHAFilings@sba.gov more than 15 calendar days after appellant received size determination is untimely even though appellant timely had filed copies of appeal with other parties) Size Appeal of Glacier Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6217 (2023) (size protest filed more than five days after original announcement of apparently successful offeror is untimely even though agency subsequently took corrective action that merely suspended performance temporarily rather than cancelling award) Size Appeal of Computer World Services Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6208 (2023) (because CIO-SP3 vehicle is long term contract, size protest filed in connection with individual task order solicitation that did not include request for recertification is untimely) Size Appeals of Master Boat Builders, Inc., Steiner Construction Company, Inc., SBA No. 6198 (2023) (remands case to Area Office because it had (i) incorrectly determined that challenged firm was the manufacturer under the nonmanufacturer rule absent any lease arrangement establishing that the firm would manufacture the contract items at its own facilities; and (ii) failed to investigate protesters' allegations regarding affiliation), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of Advant-Edge Solutions of Middle Atlantic, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6194 (2023) (no jurisdiction over (a) allegation that awardee lacks necessary licenses and permits to perform contract and (b) allegation first raised on appeal) Size Appeal of Rigid Constructors, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6193 (2023) (in the absence of completed, unredacted tax returns for two of required five years, appellant failed to provide "other relevant" information for those years concerning its and its acknowledged affiliates revenues, Area Office was justified in drawing adverse inference) Size Appeal of SysCom, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6195 (2023) (reverses Area Office because (i) although 8(a) JV agreement properly designated 8(a) as managing venturer, applicable Michigan law also required firm's Operating Agreement to make that designation and JV did not have operating agreement or any other similar document that made that designation, and (ii) JV's bylaws required a "majority" of two person board for a quorum, which allowed non 8(a) to exert negative control) Size Appeal of Ekagra Paartners, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6189 (2023) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of size protest for lack of standing because protester's proposal had been eliminated from the competition as technically unacceptable and unsatisfactory) Size Appeal of Focus Revision Partners, SBA No. SIZ-6188 (2023) (reverses Area Office's determination because mentor-protégé JV agreement did not provide sufficient detail to meet the requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(b)(2) and (c); JV Addendum was not signed, was not created until after date of final proposal revisions, and JV agreement, even with addendum, did not describe in sufficient detail each party's duties with regard to the project, even under the relaxed standards applicable to an indefinite quantity contract) Size Appeal of VMJR Companies LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6184 (2023) (upholds Area Office's size determination where protested firm failed to timely file clearly relevant documents (tax returns) requested by Area Office)
Jurisdiction; Ripeness; Standing; Timeliness; Mootness Size Appeal of Allegheny Science & Technology Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6241 (2023) (Area Office correctly determined pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.1004(a)(3) that protest against size of firm issued BPA under long-term GSA schedule contract was untimely because such protests are treated as protests on the underlying contract) Size Appeal of LS3, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6239 (2023) (dismisses protest as moot because OHA previously decided case involving same protester, same procurement, and same issue: VSBC Protest of New Directions Technologies, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-299-P (2023) Size Appeal of Daniels Bldg. Co., SBA No. SIZ-6231 (2023) (typographical error in agency's original written notice of apparently successful offeror did not excuse firm's failure to protest size within five days of bid opening, especially where firm attended bid opening) Size Appeal of YKJY, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6220 (2023) (appeal filed with OHAFilings@sba.gov more than 15 calendar days after appellant received size determination is untimely even though appellant timely had filed copies of appeal with other parties) Size Appeal of Glacier Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6217 (2023) (size protest filed more than five days after original announcement of apparently successful offeror is untimely even though agency subsequently took corrective action that merely suspended performance temporarily rather than cancelling award) Size Appeal of Computer World Services Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6208 (2023) (because CIO-SP3 vehicle is long term contract, size protest filed in connection with individual task order solicitation that did not include request for recertification is untimely) Size Appeal of Advant-Edge Solutions of Middle Atlantic, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6194 (2023) (no jurisdiction over (a) allegation that awardee lacks necessary licenses and permits to perform contract and (b) allegation first raised on appeal) Size Appeal of Ekagra Partners, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6189 (2023) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of size protest for lack of standing because protester's proposal had been eliminated from the competition as technically unacceptable and unsatisfactory Size Appeal of Special Operations Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6183 (2022) (dismisses appeal filed by parent company of original size protester whose protest had been dismissed because it had not bid on the procurement and because its protest was untimely Size Appeal of ROAM LP, LLC d/b/a ROAM Lake Powell, SBA No. SIZ-6175 (2022) (dismisses size appeal as untimely filed more than 15 days after receipt of Area Office's size determination Size Appeal of Pacific Lighting Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6169 (2022) (vacates Area Office decision sustaining size protest because protest was in connection with a delivery order under a GSA Schedule contract where the Contracting Officer had not requested recertification of size for purposes of the order Size Appeal of Quality Innovation, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6164 (2022) (Area Office correctly dismissed, as untimely, size protest of task order award set aside for small businesses pursuant to underlying, long-term multiple award IDIQ contract (MAC) because original MAC reserved a portion of the awards for small businesses and, therefore, fell under the normal rule that a small business need only qualify as such under the basic award unless the Contracting Officer explicitly requests recertification prior to the task order award Size Appeal of lrac Escalators, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6156 (2022) (dismisses appeal of size determination as untimely and not in compliance with other requirements for such appeals, e.g., based on new evidence not presented to Area Office, unsigned, and not filed on other parties) Size Appeal of RBVetCo, LLC dba Rocky Bleier Constr. Group, SBA No. SIZ-6154 (2022) (dismisses as untimely appeal filed with OHA more than 15 days after size decision reached appellant's email server--fact that appellant's representative did not open it until after close of business that day is irrelevant) Size Appeal of Stuff Overnight, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6153 (2022) (dismisses appeal as premature because Area Office has yet to issue size determination) Size Appeal of Focus Revision Partners JV LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6152 (2022) (dismisses appeal filed under name of firm that does not exist and did not submit proposal for the challenged procurement), reversed, Focus Revision Partners v. United States, No. 22-657 C (Sept. 12, 2022) Size Appeal of AAR Manufacturing, Inc. d/b/a AAR Mobility Systems, SBA No. SIZ-6151 (2022) (dismisses size appeal as moot because agency had taken corrective action resulting in cancellation of award to challenged firm) Size Appeal of DRI, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6150 (2022) (upholds Area Office decision dismissing protest as untimely because firm conceded it did not file protest within five days of IFB bid opening and email sent to Contract Specialist within that time period was too equivocal to have been considered a protest) Size Appeal of Calderwood Enterprises, SBA No. SIZ-6148 (2022) (dismisses appeal as moot due to cancellation of solicitation) Size Appeals of Anchor Labs, Inc. d/b/a Anchorage, SBA No. SIZ-6144 (2022) (firm failed to timely appeal two of three size determinations, which makes its appeal of the remaining size determination moot because the other two determinations had found it other than small on the same basis as the timely appealed determination) Size Appeal of Venergy Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6143 (2022) (dismisses defective appeal that (a) failed to allege error by Area Office, (b) was based entirely on new evidence not provided to Area Office, and (c) does not explain the relevance of the new evidence Size Appeal of EBA Ernest Bland Assocs., P.C., SBA No. SIZ-6139 (2022) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest of task order RFQ under long term contract as untimely because RFQ did not include request for recertification of size and references to standard FAR provisions are not alone sufficient to constitute request for recertification) Size Appeal of Miami-Chameleon, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6137 (2022) (refuses to consider evidence (that firm was a former affiliate whose receipts should not have been counted in determining size) that appellant failed to present to Area Office (having listed that firm as an affiliate on its Form 355) Size Appeal of Potomac River Enterprise Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6138 (2022) (reverses Area Office's determination that size protest was untimely; as explained in the preamble to revised rule at 13 C.F.R. § 121.1004(a)(2)(iii): "This rule specifically authorizes a size protest relating to an order issued against a MAC where the order is set aside for small business and the underlying MAC was awarded on an unrestricted basis, except for orders or Blanket Purchase Agreements issued under any FSS contract." 85 Fed. Reg. at 66154) Size Appeal of J.E. McAmis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6132 (2021) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest filed more than two months after bid opening and disclosure of awardee's identity as untimely; protester could not wait until agency allegedly disclosed additional details about awardee Size Appeal of Red Orange North America, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6121 (2021) (dismisses appeal because it was untimely, was not submitted by an officer of the appellant or its attorney, and was unsigned Size Appeal of Mechanix Wear, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6108 (2021) (no mechanism for review of OHA size decision by SBA Administrator) Size Appeal of Osprey Technology Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6102 (2021) (Area Office correctly dismissed (as untimely) protest filed more than five business days after notice of award despite protester's contention that agency's discussions with protester concerning establishing a bridge contract and the award of that contract demonstrated it was reconsidering award to the protested firm) Size Appeal of Blackhawk Medical Transportation, Inc., d/b/a Vandenberg Ambulance, SBA No. SIZ-6097 (2021) (rejects protester's argument that standing to protest size in a procurement with a tiered evaluation scheme is governed by 13 C.F.R. § 121.1001(a)(7); standing in protests involving SDVOSB procurements are governed by 13 C.F.R. § 121.1001(a)(8); protester was ineligible to compete in same solicitation tier as protested firm (and did not submit an offer) and, therefore, lacked standing to protest that firm's size status Size Appeal of Avenue Mori Medical Equipment, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6090 (2021) (dismisses appeal of whether firm qualified for award under nonmanufacturer rule as moot because agency has taken corrective action in response to bid protest and will obtain new proposals Size Appeal of Advant-EDGE Solutions of Middle Atlantic, Inc, SBA No. SIZ-6089 (2021) (firm whose proposal was deemed unacceptable due to "alternative pricing" and failure to complete the required representations and certifications lacked standing to file size protest of awardee) Size Appeal of Recycle Track Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6083 (2020) (non-SDVOSB lacked standing to protest size of awardee under SDVOSB set-aside) Size Appeal of Glen/Mar-Hensel Phelps Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-6079 (2020) (Area Office incorrectly calculated time for submitting the size protest, so OHA remands protest to Area Office to determine whether it was timely submitted within the five-day window) Size Appeals of Blueprint Consulting Services, LLC, dba Excelicon and STS-Optimo, CTA, SBA No. SIZ-6077 (2020) (dismisses size protests because agency's decision to follow GAO's recommendation to terminate award renders size protests moot) Size Appeal of Bacik Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6071 (2020) (dismisses appeal because (i) Appellant failed to respond to a motion to dismiss and (ii) because the issues Appellant raises are either beyond OHA's jurisdiction or are raised for the first time on appeal) Size Appeal of Mid-Continent Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6038 (2019) (dismisses (as untimely) appeal filed more than 15 days after appellant received Area Office's determination) Size Appeal of Land Shark Shredding, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6037 (2019) (Area Office correctly determined protester lacked standing to file size protest because it had been eliminated from the competition for submitting a late quotation) Size Appeal of AOC Connect, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6025 (2019) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as nonspecific because its allegations were based on the protested firm's alleged size on the date it submitted its revised offer when the correct date for determining size was the date of the initial offer) Size Appeal of Davis Defense Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6016 (2019) (size protest was untimely because Contracting Officer had not requested re-certification prior to awarding task order under long term contract; and protester lacked standing because its offer had been found to be unacceptable) Size Appeal of TIC Security, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6007 (2019) (upholds dismissal of size protest filed upon issuance of task order as untimely because task order was issued pursuant to long term contract and Contracting Officer had not requested recertification of size in connection with task order) Size Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5987 (2019) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest for lack of standing because protester was neither an offeror nor eligible to submit offer on protested procurement) Size Appeal of Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5982 (2019) (in HUBZone procurements, size is determined as of date of self-certification with initial offer, not date of award) Size Appeal of Global Dynamics, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5979 (2018) (Area Office incorrectly dismissed size protest filed more than five days after original award notification as untimely because, after original notification, agency took actions inconsistent with that decision, including reopening discussions, obtaining revised proposals, and twice awarding the contract to a different company) Size Appeal of Sentient Digital Inc. dba Entrust Government Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-5963 (2018) (dismisses size appeal filed more than 15 days after receipt of Area Office's size determination because fact that Contracting Officer had initially assured appellant that Government would not terminate appellant's contract in response to size determination did not excuse failure to timely protest) Size Appeals of DNT Solutions, LLC, and Alliant Solutions Partner, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5962 (2018) (certification information sought in task order solicitation was not a request for recertification under long term contract, but rather enabled procuring agency to ascertain which, if any, of prime contractors were eligible for particular evaluation preference included in solicitation, so Area Office should have dismissed size protest filed after issuance of task order solicitation as untimely) Size Appeal of DB Systems Tech, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5961 (2018) (grants motion to dismiss appeal because it failed to allege any mistake of fact or law in the Area Office's finding of affiliation under the ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Navarre Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5942 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed second size protest as untimely because it was filed long after original notification of award, even though agency had conducted multiple rounds of corrective action in the interim as a result of GAO protests and the size protester was making an allegation based upon facts that had not existed when original size protest was filed, because the original award had never been cancelled) Size Appeal of Velocity Training, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5916 (2018) (dismisses appeal as moot because it involved the ostensible subcontractor rule, which is a contract-specific issue, and the contract had been terminated in its entirety) Size Appeal of JEQ & Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5913 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as insufficiently specific because it alleged only that protested firm was "not even small" without any supporting evidence; no jurisdiction over allegation that firm was not a HUBZone business) Size Appeal of JEQ & Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5912 (2018) (no jurisdiction over allegations involving HUBZone business certification) Size Appeal of JEQ & Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5910 (2018) (dismisses appeal based on bid protest (that award should have been made to appellant rather than to awardee) Size Appeal of JEQ & Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5909 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest for lack of standing because protester's offer had been found to be technically unacceptable; OHA lacks jurisdiction to hear appeal involving HUBZone protests) Size Appeal of Bid Solve, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5906 (2018) (appeal filed with OHA 20 days after receipt of size determination is untimely, even though appellant filed copies of appeal with other required parties in timely manner) Inc./ReefPoint Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5905 (2018) (Area Office correctly determined that size protest of awardee of BPA under long-term GSA Schedule contract was untimely where the Contracting Officer had not requested recertification of size in connection with BPA's issuance)Size Appeal of ILKA Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5903 (2018) (dismisses size protest for lack of standing under 13 C.F.R. 121.1001(a)(1)(i) because protester's proposal that had been determined to be technically unacceptable by the Contracting Officer) Size Appeal of GovSmart, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5894 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest involving proposed 8(a) sole source award of purchase order for lack of standing because protester was not an 8(a) firm nominated for the award) Size Appeal of Elliott Aviation, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5890 (2018) (OHA refuses to consider allegation that challenged firm is not manufacturer of item being procured because protester did not make that allegation in original protest) Size Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5883 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest for lack of standing because, by refusing Contracting Officer's request to extend offer acceptance period, firm had removed itself from competition) Size Appeal of Cliffdale Mfg., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5879 (2018) (firm lacked standing to appeal adverse size determination relating to its wholly-owned subsidiary) Size Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5880 (2018) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal filed more than 15 days after appellant's receipt of size determination because "OHA has no discretion to extend or waive the deadline") Size Appeal of Conrad Shipyard, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5873 (2017) (protest filed in name of entity that was not offeror for current procurement was properly dismissed for lack of standing and protest regulations do not permit amendment of protest to correct name of protester) Size Appeal of QuaLED Lighting, SBA No. SIZ-5867 (2017) (Area Office correctly found protest untimely because it only mentioned base contract award (which occurred more than a year before the protest was filed) rather than subsequent award of task order)Size Appeal of Chenega Support Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5874 (2017) (Area Office correctly decided that agency's decision to suspend performance of (but not cancel) contract in response to GAO protest did not change requirement that size protest must be filed within five days of original notice of identity of apparent awardee) Size Appeal of Unissant, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5871 (2017) (protest of size certification filed in connection with exercise of option of long term contract was untimely because it was filed at least four months after recertification even though protester had reason to know of protested firm's recertification much earlier than that) Size Appeal of Seaborn Professional Staffing, SBA No. SIZ-5868 (2017) (remands case to Area Office for further review to determine whether RFQ called for the award of a contract, a task order, or a BPA, and as a result, which size protest rules are applicable to the dispute )Size Appeal of Sea Box, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5846 (2017) (upholds Area Office's decision to treat firm's letter as a protest and then to dismiss it for lack of standing because the protester already had been eliminated from the competition for a procurement-related reason) Size Appeal of Ordnance Holdings, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5833 (2017) (dismisses (as untimely) appeal filed more than 15 days after appellant was deemed to receive email transmitting Area Office's size determination because that email address was the same address the appellant used in subsequently filing its appeal) Size Appeal of Bridgeway Professionals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5827 (2017) (dismisses appeal of finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule as moot because underlying solicitation cancelled) Size Appeal of Lost Creek Holdings, LLC d/b/a ALL-STAR Health Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-5823 (2017) (vacates Area Office's decision to dismiss protest for lack of standing; no clear evidence that size protester's proposal was technically unacceptable) Size Appeal of K2 Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5805 (2017) (Area Office correctly determined size protest was untimely because the agency's delay in awarding the contract did not toll the normal requirement that size protests must be filed within five days after receipt of the pre-award notice of the identity of the prospective awardee) Size Appeal of Platinum Business Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5800 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined size protest involving award of task order under multiple award schedule contract was untimely because solicitation did not require recertification of size status) Size Appeal of Encore Analytics, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5796 (2016) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of protest because agency was not required to, and did not, revise solicitation to reflect newly amended regulation relied on by protester) Size Appeal of TMC Global Professional Services, SBA No. SIZ-5792 (2016) (Area Office erred in dismissing size protest by firm that had received low evaluation scores but had not been eliminated from the competition) Size Appeal of System Studies & Simulation, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5780 (2016) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest of task order awardee under long-term contract where Contracting Officer had not requested recertification of size in connection with task order) Size Appeal of K4 Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5775 (2016) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest against size status on BPA issued under long-term contract as untimely where protester did not allege, until appeal to OHA, that recertification was required under 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(g)(2) as a result of an acquisition of the challenged firm) Size Appeal of The Emergence Group, SBA No. SIZ-5766 (2016) (dismisses appeal because OHA lacks jurisdiction over protest alleging that ANC's exemption from normal rules of affiliation gives it unfair competitive advantage) Size Appeal of Straughan Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5767 (2016) (non-protesting firm already eliminated from competitive range lacks standing to appeal determination of another firm's size status) Size Appeal of ACR Electronics, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5770 (2016) (appeal from prior dismissal of size protest is moot because agency has since filed its own protest) Size Appeal of Hale Laulima, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5750 (2016) (contrary to finding of Area Office, protest was timely because agency had re-opened discussions and solicited revised proposals after original announcement of apparent awardee) Size Appeal of Maron Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5759 (2016) (dismisses appeal that failed to include several types of information required by OHA's regulations concerning, inter alia, its timeliness) Size Appeal of Latvian Connection, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5734 (2016) (dismisses size protest filed initially with OHA instead of SBA) Size Appeal of Sage Acquisitions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5726 (2016) (appellant's withdrawal of appeal in light of agency's rescission of its size decision renders appeal moot), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of CodeLynx, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5720 (2016) (Area Office correctly dismissed (as untimely) a protest involving task order under long-term contract because Contracting Officer had not requested offerors to re-certify size in task order solicitation) Lack of Specificity in Protest or Appeal Size Appeal of Global Pacific Design Builders, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6260 (2023) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as non-specific because it only alleged facts concerning protested firm's size after the date on which it was required to self-certify ) Size Appeal of Daniels Bldg. Co., SBA No. SIZ-6250 (2023) (Area Office properly dismissed as speculative protest alleging that firms “have not fulfilled their obligations as Mentor and Protégé and have no intention or ability to fulfill those requirements on the project at issue" without supporting evidence) Size Appeal of Ace Ventures, LLC, SBA No. 6160 (2022) (document timely filed by firm alleging only that it was concerned that awardee was affiliated with a non-profit is insufficiently specific because it lacks any allegation that would establish that the combined size of the firms would be other than small) Size Appeal of Ascendant Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6131 (2021) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest that included on speculative allegations, misinterpreted the applicable size standard, and alleged only that a revenue based standard was exceeded in a single year Size Appeal of Wilson Walton Int'l., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6031 (2019) (protest alleging affiliation without presenting any evidence that combined size of allegedly affiliated firms exceeded size standard was insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of Resicum, LLC. SBA No. SIZ-6024 (2019) (Area Office erred in dismissing protest as nonspecific because protester quickly corrected the problem within the five day time limit for filing a protest) Size Appeal of Arrow Moving & Storage -- Mayflower Transit, SBA No. SIZ-5902 (2018) (Area Office correctly dismissed a protest as insufficiently specific because it provided no evidence to support its allegation of affiliation through common financial and administrative control and no evidence that, even if there were affiliation, the combined receipts of the affiliated firms exceeded the applicable size standard) Size Appeal of NuGate Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5821 (2017) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest that failed to include any evidence as insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of DataSavers of Jacksonville, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5795 (2016) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as speculative and insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of Emergency Pest Control, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5797 (2016) (affirms Area Offices' finding that protested firms were not affiliated as a result of a franchise agreement; Area Office was not required to examine other issues not raised in appellant's original size protest) Size Appeal of OER Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5757 (2016) (although non-specific in itself, protest that included copy of protested firm's SAM profile showing it was not small for purposes of instant procurement should not have been dismissed by Area Office) Size Appeal of International Filter Mfg. Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5711 (2016) (Area Office properly based its size determination on sworn statements in protested firm's Form 355 rather than protester's general, unsupported allegations; OHA will not consider additional companies alleged to be affiliates when the protester did not identify these firms to the Area Office) Size Appeal of ProSouth Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5708 (2016) (Area Office correctly dismissed original protest as insufficiently specific; and appeal suffers from same type of infirmity)
Failure to Provide Documentation to Area Office; Adverse Inference Size Appeal of Sanford Federal, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6261 (2024) (even if original size protest was non-specific, protested firm did not (i) raise this argument to the Area Office, (ii) respond to the protest allegations or (iii) submit requested information; therefore, failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a small business Size Appeal of Portacool, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6251 (2023) (Area Office correctly drew adverse inference from challenged firm's failure to provide relevant information requested by office concerning possible affiliates and the ownership of the company it claimed to be owned by) Size Appeal of Rigid Constructors, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6193 (2023) (in the absence of completed, unredacted tax returns for two of required five years, appellant failed to provide "other relevant" information for those years concerning its and its acknowledged affiliates revenues, Area Office was justified in drawing adverse inference) Size Appeal of VMJR Companies LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6184 (2023) (upholds Area Office's size determination where protested firm failed to timely file clearly relevant documents (tax returns) requested by Area Office) Size Appeal of The Onyx-Urban Collaborative Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-6157 (2022) (upholds Area Office's application of adverse inference after firm refused to provide requested tax return for the period in question because, even though tax return had not been filed at the time of self-certification, it had been by the time of the request from the Area Office) Size Appeal of KCW Design Group, LLC, SBA No. Siz-5993 (2019) (Area Office correctly applied adverse inference after protested firm failed to respond to specific and credible protest allegations) Size Appeal of Perry Johnson & Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-5943 (2018) (affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation through adverse inference after firm refused repeated clear requests to provide additional information to Area Office concerning alleged affiliations) Size Appeal of AWA Business Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5904 (2018) (Area Office correctly applied adverse inference rule in size protest because protested firm failed to provide specific documents requested by the Area Office that related to the protester's size and that were necessary for a decision on the protest)Size Appeal of OxyHeal Medical Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5707 (2016) (Area Office properly drew adverse inference against protested firm after employee from whom SBA requested relevant information to respond to protest failed to respond) Size Appeals of Apogee Group, LLC, and RPM Partners, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6232 (2023) (denies size protests because small business prime could delegate most responsibilities in construction contract so long as it maintained management and portfolio oversight)Size Appeal of High Desert Aviation, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6179 (2022) (Area Office correctly identified the primary and vital contract requirements and correctly concluded the subcontractor would provide most of those requirements such that appellant and sub were affiliated through ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of NFRL LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6174 (2022) (upholds Area Office finding that Appellant does not meet the ownership and control requirements for the SBIR program at 13 C.F.R. § 121.702(a)(1) because it and its ostensible subcontractor are treated as joint venturers and, therefore, affiliates Size Appeal of Telesis Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6113 (2021) (reverses Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because at least two of the four factors for a finding of undue reliance are not present: appellant did not propose to hire "vast majority" of its workforce from subcontractor/incumbent and appellant would supervise and control Project Manager it would hire from subcontractor) Size Appeal of Estrategy Consulting, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6109 (2021) (Area Office correctly determined that subcontractor providing all medical waste collection and disposal services in a contract for such services was performing the contract's primary and vital requirements and, thus, was affiliated with the prime according to the ostensible subcontractor rule Size Appeal of Crash Research & Analysis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6106 (2021) (no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule where section of proposal that identified subcontractors did not mention alleged subcontractor; no violation of newly organized concern rule where no evidence alleged key employee of affiliated firm had any part in organizing, conceiving, creating, or funding challenged firm; insufficient relationships to establish affiliation through totality of circumstances Size Appeal of Leumas Residential, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6103 (2021) (Area Office erred in finding affiliation based on ostensible subcontractor rule; primary and vital requirements of contract involve only grounds maintenance and not also the provision of equipment; prime contractor's post-protest statement clarifies what was not stated in proposal, i.e., that it would provide 61% of the grounds maintenance; only one of four DoverStaffing requirements for a showing of undue reliance is present, i.e., that the incumbent is the subcontractor and is ineligible for award as the prime; insufficient facts to support Area Office's finding of affiliation via the totality of the circumstances) Size Appeal of Montech, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6100 (2021) (Area Office erred in finding ostensible subcontractor relationship because it misanalysed factors two and four of DoverStaffing criteria) Size Appeal of Invisio Communications, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6084 (2020), (affirms Area Office determination that ostensible subcontractor rule is inapplicable to solicitation classified as manufacturing procurement subject to nonmanufacturer rule; appellant offered nothing beyond speculation as support for its claim of affiliation through economic dependence; standard non-exclusive commercial distribution agreement is not, by itself, evidence of affiliation) Size Appeal of Contego
Environmental, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6073 (2020) (reverses Area
Office's finding concerning compliance with ostensible subcontractor
rule because challenged firm's proposal did not establish that it
would be responsible for managing the construction contract)
Size Appeal of NorthWind-CDM Smith Advantage JV, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6053 (2020) (affirms Area Office decision that firm did not violate ostensible subcontractor rule despite employing large business/incumbent as subcontractor because: (i) protested firm would perform the majority of the contract's primary and vital requirements; (ii) protested firm would hire not only the incumbent's workers (and only after individual review of each worker to determine his/her suitability, as opposed to simply hiring them en masse) but also workers from other firms on the prior contract and a substantial number of new workers as well; (iii) incumbent's managerial personnel hired by protested firm would be under protested firm's management and control; and (iv) protested firm was a proven business with experience in the area of the current contract) Size Appeal of Warrior Service Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6046 (2020) (based on documents available at time of self-certification, Area Office correctly found firm violated ostensible subcontractor rule because prime would rely on subcontractor to perform all or almost all of contract work) Size Appeal of Nationwide Pharmaceutical, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6027 (2019) (ostensible subcontractor rule; Area Office correctly found that firm would perform contract's primary and vital requirements based in part on MOU and declaration documents created after proposal was submitted to explain proposal that had been silent on respective roles of prime and sub because those documents did not contradict proposal; appellant failed to establish prime was unusually reliant upon sub because three of the four factors in DoverStaffing required for such a finding were not present here) Size Appeal of Inquiries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6008 (2019) (facts that (i) two firms worked together on two other projects, (ii) their offices are in proximity to one another, and (iii) the proposal referred to them as a "team" are not sufficient to find affiliation, especially in the absence of common ownership, management, or employees or any evidence one firm is financially dependent on the other; based on DoverStaffing analysis, firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule simply by teaming with the large business incumbent on a predecessor contract because (i) firm would hire incumbent's management personnel and make them its own employees and challenged firm had sufficient past performance experience on its own so that it was not unusually reliant on past performance experience of alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Kûpono Government Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5967 (2018) (affirms Area Office finding that firm ran afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule because principal purpose of contract was training and according to prime's proposal, subcontractor would perform large majority of training) Size Appeal of Jacob's Eye, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5955 (2018) (Area Office correctly identified primary and vital contract requirements and concluded that firm would violate ostensible subcontractor rule because its proposal noted its proposed large business subcontractors would perform those requirements) Size Appeal of Synaptek Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5954 (2018) (OHA case of first impression; upholds Area Office finding that small business prime did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule because: (i) two large business subcontractors would not be performing primary and vital requirements; (ii) two small business subcontractors were similarly situated entities and small business prime, with those SSEs would be performing primary and vital requirements; and (iii) only one of four factors in ostensible subcontractor analysis, i.e., reliance on subcontractors' past performance was present here and prime showed it also had relevant past performance experience) Size Appeal of Elevator Service, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5949 (2018) (affirms Area Office's finding that, analyzing all Dover Staffing factors, protested firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule even though subcontractor is incumbent that is not itself eligible for award and the challenged firm plans to hire a significant number of the incumbent's workers, because (i) contract required experienced, licensed union workers, which limited the pool available for the protested firm to draw from and (ii) protested firm: (a) had relevant past experience of its own, (b) would supervise work with its own managerial employees, and (c) would exercise managerial control over the day-to-day primary and vital contract requirements) Size Appeal of Martin Bros. Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5945 (2018) (protested firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontract rule because: (i) it would be managing the construction contract, which is the normal role for a small business prime contractor on a construction project; (ii) there was no proof of allegations of its lack of bonding capacity; and (iii) since solicitation did not require evaluation of past performance, allegations of lack of experience were irrelevant (agency would not have evaluated experience of alleged ostensible subcontractor in making award decision). Area Office correctly found no affiliation through identity of interest because (i) current regulations exclude in-laws from those establishing identity of interest and (ii) there was a clear line of fracture between owner of protested firm and estranged wife involved in alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Residential Enhancements, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5931 (2018) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation via the ostensible subcontractor rule because appellant/prime will perform all, or nearly all, of primary and vital contract requirements, "quality control" to be performed by subcontractor is not among those primary and vital requirements, and employees to be hired by appellant do not implicate the rule) Size Appeal of Equity Mortgage Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5867 (2017) (firm ran afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule because: (i) the proposed subcontractors are the incumbent contractor and its subcontractor, both of whom are ineligible to compete for the procurement; (2) the prime contractor plans to hire the large majority of its workforce from the subcontractors; (3) the prime contractor's proposed management previously served with the subcontractor on the incumbent contract; and (4) the prime contractor lacks relevant experience) Size Appeal of Emergent, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5875 (2017) (upholds Area Office finding that firm's proposed use of large business incumbent as subcontractor did not violate ostensible subcontractor rule because: (i) the firm will not hire its workforce en masse from the incumbent; (ii) the firm will not hire its management personnel (specifically its PM) from the incumbent; (iii) the firm has relevant experience of its own; and (iv) the small business prime will perform the majority of the contract's primary and vital contract requirements) Size Appeal of The Frontline Group, SBA No. SIZ-5860 (2017) (Area Office reasonably concluded that proposed subcontractor was a small, similarly-situated entity, and, therefore, ostensible subcontractor rule did not apply) Size Appeal of Automation Precision Technology, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5850 (2017) (Area Office correctly found affiliation under ostensible subcontractor rule where small business prime would hire the large business incumbent's workforce en masse, and almost entirely rely on that large business as subcontractor for managing the contract) Size Appeal of Lost Creek Holdings, LLC d/b/a All-STAR Health Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-5848 (2017) (the ostensible subcontractor rule at 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), which requires that a contractor and its ostensible subcontractor be treated as affiliates for size determination purposes, has not been overridden by 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(3)(i), which provides that a joint venture of two small businesses may submit an offer for any federal procurement) Size Appeal of Synergy Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5843 (2017) (Area Office correctly found that firm was not unduly reliant on subcontractors in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of the Frontline Group, SBA No. SIZ-5835 (2017) (remands case to Area Office to analyze whether protested firm will perform the bulk of the primary and vital requirements of the contract in compliance with the ostensible subcontractor rule or whether the firm and its proposed subcontractor are exempt from the rule as "similarly situated entities" pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4)) Size Appeal of Olgoonik Diversified Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5825 (2017) (Area Office erred in finding appellant: (i) was in a joint venture with two sister companies; (ii) Area Office also erred in finding appellant affiliated with sister companies under ostensible subcontractor rule because they were not subcontractors and because appellant is a business concern owned and controlled by an ANC, and is not considered affiliated with other concerns owned by that ANC because of common ownership, common management, or performance of common administrative services. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(b)(2)(ii)) Size Appeal of Charitar Realty, SBA No. SIZ-5806 (2017) (Area Office correctly found affiliation under the ostensible subcontractor rule because subcontractor was incumbent contractor and prime's proposed workers were former subcontractor employees) Size Appeal of A-P-T Research, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5798 (2016) (Area Office correctly found no affiliation under ostensible subcontractor rule because although Area Office misidentified the contract's primary and vital requirements, the challenged firm will perform the bulk of the actual primary and vital requirements and is not unduly reliant on its subcontractors) Size Appeal of Greener Construction Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5782 (2016) (affirms Area Office finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because subcontractor rather than challenged firm would perform primary and vital contract requirements and firm's change of approach after final proposal was submitted was irrelevant) Size Appeal of Social Solutions International, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5741 (2016) (affirms Area Office decision that small business prime would be performing primary and vital requirements of contract and, therefore, was not in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of OSG, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5718 (2016) (Area Office correctly concluded that contested firm was the "manufacturer" of the remanufactured transparent armor assemblies required by the solicitation and that it was not unduly reliant on a subcontractor in violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Modus Operandi, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5716 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined firm that was unusually reliant on incumbent large business as subcontractor on new contract ran afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Hamilton Alliance, Inc. SBA No. SIZ-5698 (Dec. 8, 2015) (Area Office correctly determined that ostensible subcontractor rule applied because prime contractor was only responsible for management while subcontractor would provide all primary and vital requirements of refuse collection contract)
Miscellaneous Affiliation Issues; JV; Mentor- ProtégéSize Appeal of BC Technical Center, LLC d/b/a BC Engineered Products, SBA No. SIZ-6263 (2024) (Area Office erred in finding affiliation via the newly organized concern rule because the challenged firm was not spun off from the alleged affiliate Size Appeal of HealthVerity, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6266 (2024) (grants appeal in part; remands to Area Office to investigate further whether CEO and several co-founders of challenged firm were former officers or key employees of Microsoft which would create affiliation under under newly organized concern rule; Area Office not required to further investigate identity of interest allegation that the protester made only generally and without specific evidence) Size Appeal of Federal Performance Management Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6246 (2023) (upholds Area Office's determination that the members of a joint venture should be treated as affiliates because the joint venture submitted its offer on the contested procurement more than two years after the JV's first award as a joint venture) Size Appeal of Aldevra, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6240 (2023) (denies request to submit new evidence because it was available, but not submitted at time of original size determination; denies request for hearing because unnecessary to resolution of protest; Area Office conducted reasonable investigation in determining two firms had taken adequate steps to disentangle themselves from prior affiliation Size Appeals of Master Boat Builders, Inc., Steiner Construction Company, Inc., SBA No. 6198 (2023) (remands case to Area Office because it had (i) incorrectly determined that challenged firm was the manufacturer under the nonmanufacturer rule absent any lease arrangement establishing that the firm would manufacture the contract items at its own facilities; and (ii) failed to investigate protesters' allegations regarding affiliation), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of SysCom, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6195 (2023) (reverses Area Office because (i) although 8(a) JV agreement properly designated 8(a) as managing venturer, applicable Michigan law also required firm's Operating Agreement to make that designation and JV did not have operating agreement or any other similar document that made that designation, and (ii) JV's bylaws required a "majority" of two person board for a quorum, which allowed non 8(a) to exert negative control) Size Appeal of Focus Revision Partners, SBA No. SIZ-6188 (2023) (reverses Area Office's determination because mentor-protégé JV agreement did not provide sufficient detail to meet the requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(b)(2) and (c); JV Addendum was not signed, was not created until after date of final proposal revisions, and JV agreement, even with addendum, did not describe in sufficient detail each party's duties with regard to the project, even under the relaxed standards applicable to an indefinite quantity contract) Size Appeal of SysCom, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6171 (2022) (reverses determination by Area Office that protested firm is small business because of numerous indications in the record (some provided by the protested firm, itself) that call that finding into question, including whether the protested firm is as it claims to be a joint venture between two business concerns, majority-owned and controlled by its Managing Venturer Size Appeal of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6158 (2022) (upholds Area Office's determination that provisions of "Services and Supply Agreement" read as a whole showed sufficient control of appellant by another firm to establish affiliation under totality of circumstances analysis) Size Appeal of KIHOMAC, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6133 (2021) (protester failed to establish that any regulation overcame general rule that challenged firm was not affiliated with its licensed SBIC investor, especially where investment was not sufficient to establish control. Size Appeal of Rocky Mountain Medical Equipment, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6129 (2021) (affirms Area Office's use of a sworn document generated after date to determine size in order to conclude that JV between small business and its SBA-approved mentor was small because document merely described acceptable banking arrangement that existed prior to that time but that simply had not been memorialized yet) Size Appeal of DSC-EMI Maintenance Solutions, LLC, Native Energy and Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6096 (2021) (upholds Area Office determination that mentor-protégé joint venture agreement did not comply with requirements for such agreements because it failed to identify the responsibilities of the parties for providing an important component of the work on the contract resulting from the solicitation Size Appeal of Swift & Staley, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6095 (2021) (members of a populated joint venture are required to assume their proportionate share of joint venture receipts, and Area Office did not err in using Appellant's percentage of ownership in populated joint venture to determine Appellant's proportionate share of receipts) Size Appeal of Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6087 (2021) (rejects size challenge to mentor-protégé JV under SBA's All Small Mentor-Protégé Program because: (i) allegation that firms entered mentor-protégé agreement (MPA) under false pretenses and with an illegitimate aim is subjective, speculative, and unsupported by any evidence, (ii) allegation that the MPA, itself, was improper is not a valid basis for a size protest; and (iii) allegation that an alleged "misuse" of the MPA constitutes affiliation is not a recognized basis in the regulations for a finding of affiliation) Size Appeal of Darton Innovative Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6085 (2020) (unsuccessful protest; firm offered nothing to rebut the presumption that it is economically dependent on firm that has provided 100% of its revenues for five years, and firm cannot rely on revision to 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(f)(2) that did not become effective until after it self-certified) Size Appeal of HWI Gear, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6072 (2020) (returns case to Area Office because it did not adequately articulate a rationale to support its conclusion about the identity of the manufacturer of the end items) Size Appeal of Navarro Research and Eng'g, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6065 (2020) (even though Area Office did not identify primary and vital contract requirements or explain its conclusion that the challenged prime would perform them, the record is sufficient for the OHA to ascertain those requirements and conclude that challenged firm would perform them; record does not support that challenged firm relied on sub for past performance; no presumption of affiliation through economic dependence where prime did not derive 70% of its receipts from other firm over three fiscal years preceding self-certification; current percentage of revenues is immaterial to this analysis; no affiliation based on totality of circumstances where there have been findings of no affiliation through economic dependence or violation of ostensible subcontractor rule Size Appeal of Oak Grove Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6051 (2020) (Area Office correctly evaluated allegations regarding affiliation through economic dependence based upon three most recently completed fiscal years) Size Appeal of KTS Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6049 (2020) (mentor-protégé joint venture agreement failed to meet the requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b)(2)(vi) and (vii) because it did not: (i) itemize the equipment to be used in the performance of the contract; (ii) specify the responsibilities of the parties with respect to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance; and (iii) indicate the tasks that each member of the joint venture would perform on the contract, or which employees of each member would perform the functions) Size Appeal of Lukos, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6047 (2020) (existence of promissory note, without more, did not give holder control over firm; despite puffery statement in individual's resume, firm's Operating Agreement makes clear that he is not a member of its management for purposes of finding affiliation through common management Size Appeal of Cazador Investments LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6048 (2020) (two firms with business connections with one another, one controlled by a father and the other by his son, are affiliated by an identity of interest in the absence of a showing of clear line of fracture where, as of the time of self-certification, one firm proposed to team or subcontract with the other on the contract at issue The Coleman Group, Inc. d/b/a Spherion Staffing Services, SBA No. SIZ-6026 (2019) (franchisor and franchisee for temporary employment services are affiliated because of amount of control franchise agreement gives franchisor over franchisee's operations) Size Appeal of Avar Consulting, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6017 (2019) (Area Office's decision finding firm (TelaForce) eligible small business was not inconsistent with OHA's prior decisions in TelaForce I and TelaForce II; Area Office correctly concluded there was no violation of newly organized concern rule because its first required element (that the former officers, directors, principal stockholders, managing members, or key employees of one concern organize a new concern) was not present; Area Office correctly determined there was no presumption of economic dependence because almost all of revenue challenged firm derived from mentor was under mentor-protégé agreement, and, thus, did not count toward the 70% figure in the rule; and no affiliation through totality of circumstances because there were no allegations of affiliation apart from the two allegations the Area Office had rejected)Size Appeal of Global Dynamics, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6012 (2019) (events occurring after self-certification as of initial priced proposal are irrelevant in size determination; 2016 change in SBA's regulations to forbid populated joint ventures was not retroactive; contrary to protester's contentions, JV met all requirements in 13 C.F.R. 124.513(c) and (d)) Size Appeal of Inquiries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6008 (2019) (facts that (i) two firms worked together on two other projects, (ii) their offices are in proximity to one another, and (iii) the proposal referred to them as a "team" are not sufficient to find affiliation, especially in the absence of common ownership, management, or employees or any evidence one firm is financially dependent on the other; based on DoverStaffing analysis, firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule simply by teaming with the large business incumbent on a predecessor contract because (i) firm would hire incumbent's management personnel and make them its own employees and challenged firm had sufficient past performance experience on its own so that it was not unusually reliant on past performance experience of alleged affiliate) Size Appeals of Kentucky Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. and NMI Alaska, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6001 (2019) (protested firm is an eligible 8(a) mentor-protégé joint venture for purposes of this RFP, even though one of JV members terminated the mentor-protégé agreement after the JV's submission of its initial offer, but prior to award, especially because the agreement provided that its termination would not impair any obligations of the JV) Size Appeal of ZLynx Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6010 (2019) (upholds Area Office's finding of affiliation among three firms based on (i) identity of interest between father and son absent evidence of line of fracture and (ii) common management based on fact that aggregating positions of father and son establishes they have requisite control) Size Appeal of Excellus, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5999 (2019) (Area Office correctly concluded JV violated 3-in-2 rule and that changing; merely altering composition of JV is not sufficient to comply with regulation requiring new JV to be established to avoid noncompliance with 3-in-2 rule) Size Appeal of Birmingham Industrial Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5984 (2019) (in failing to make any deductions for interaffiliate transactions to calculate average annual receipts of affiliated companies, Area Office erred by assuming Appellant's tax returns took into account interaffiliate transactions simply because its financial statements were consolidated, where Appellant made no such statement, and where each entity filed its own separate tax return) Size Appeal of Bukkehave, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5981 (2019) (denies motion to submit new evidence that could have been, but was not, submitted to Area Office; Area Office not required to investigate alleged noncompliance with nonmanufacturer rule because appellant did not raise that issue in its original size protest; arguments that protested firm provided incomplete or inaccurate evidence to Area Office are denied because arguments are based on "new" evidence that OHA has determined is inadmissible; appellant, by failing to address affiliation argument in supplemental appeal, is deemed to have abandoned it) Size Appeal of Tesecon, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5985 (2019) (upholds Area Office's finding of affiliation through identify of interest of brothers) Size Appeals of STAcqMe, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5976 (2018) (Area Office correctly determined that mentor-protégé joint venture agreement failed to comply with 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.18(b)(2) and (3) because it was drafted more than a year before the solicitation was issued and, therefore, did not detail the specific tasks to be performed by the members of the joint venture for the solicitation at issue) Size Appeal of Eagle Support Services Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5972 (2018) (affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation through identity of interest because principal of one firm has multiple (six) common investments with another firm) Size Appeal of Lynxnet, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5971 (2018) (affirms Area Office's finding that SBA-approved 8(a) joint venture was eligible small business because it was unpopulated as required by the regulations to be eligible for an exception to the affiliation rules and the manufacturing of the contract items would be performed by the joint venture partners) Size Appeal of TelaForce, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5970 (2018) (Area Office lacked proper basis to find affiliation under the newly-organized concern rule and under totality of the circumstances, but case is remanded for investigation whether there was affiliation through economic dependence), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of Spinnaker Joint Venture, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5964 (2018) (affirms Area Office's finding that firm was not affiliated with its large mentor and joint venture partner and, therefore, that the joint venture was an eligible small business for the procurement) Size Appeal of G&C Fab-Con, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5960 (2018) (Area Office erred in finding negative control because Operating Agreement provision is identical to provision previously examined by OHA in Size Appeal of GC&V Constr., LLC, which OHA held had nothing to do with control, but only stated that members could take action by unanimous consent in lieu of holding meeting) Size Appeal of Telecommunication Support Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5953 (2018) (in determining affiliation, Area Office erred in treating an LOI as an agreement in principle to purchase a business, which should be given present effect under 13 C.F.R. 121.103(d); instead LOI was only an agreement to negotiate under certain parameters and, therefore, did not give rise to affiliation) Size Appeal of Southern Contracting Solutions III, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5956 (2018) (Area Office erred in finding minority member of firm had power of negative control because Operating Agreement only gave him power to block extraordinary actions, not actions essential to the daily operation of company; however, case remanded to Area Office to consider whether protested firm was affiliated with others through common management because firm's President also may have critical influence, or ability to exercise substantive control, over additional firms) Size Appeal of GC&V Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5952 (2018) (Area Office incorrectly interpreted provision of Operating Agreement as giving minority members power to exert negative control, when all it did was state that members could take action by unanimous consent in lieu of holding meeting) Size Appeal of Martin Bros. Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5945 (2018) (protested firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontract rule because: (i) it would be managing the construction contract, which is the normal role for a small business prime contractor on a construction project; (ii) there was no proof of allegations of its lack of bonding capacity; and (iii) since solicitation did not require evaluation of past performance, allegations of lack of experience were irrelevant (agency would not have evaluated experience of alleged ostensible subcontractor in making award decision). Area Office correctly found no affiliation through identity of interest because (i) current regulations exclude in-laws from those establishing identity of interest and (ii) there was a clear line of fracture between owner of protested firm and estranged wife involved in alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Level Access, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5939 (2018) (upholds Area Office's finding of affiliation based on stock ownership; Area Office correctly drew adverse inference from fact that protested firm did not supply information on allegedly affiliated concern clearly identified by protester in its size protest; Area Office did not err in declining to find an identify of interest among challenged firm's employees and to aggregate their stock ownership interests for purposes of deciding whether alleged affiliate's block of stock was large compared to others because challenged firm did not present evidence to establish that identity of interest) Size Appeal of Crop Jet Aviation, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5933 (2018) (affirms Area Office determination that evidence presented by protested firm demonstrated that, although it had engaged in discussions to merge with allegedly affiliated firm, as of the date size was determined, such discussions had not yet reached the stage of an agreement in principle to merge pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(d)) Size Appeal of CopaSat, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5918 (2018) (upholds Area Office finding of affiliation through common management (individual who is majority owner, President and CEO of appellant is also Vice President and member of Board of Managers of affiliated company) despite Area Office error in finding additional basis of affiliation through identity of interest) Size Appeal of National Security Assocs., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5907 (2018) (although Area Office erred in finding affiliation through common management despite multiple sworn declarations from the challenged firm to the contrary, Area Office's additional finding of affiliation due to the totality of the circumstances is affirmed where there were multiple indicia of connections that together indicated control) Size Appeal of Melton Sales & Service, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5893 (2018) (although Area Office made significant errors in evaluating one alleged affiliate under minority shareholder rule, error was harmless because protester had failed to establish existence of additional affiliated firms under totality of circumstances and common management tests, and, after aggregating employees of affiliated firms, protested firm was still small under employee-based size standard) Size Appeal of Hendall, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5888 (2018) (upholds Area Office determination that protester failed to demonstrate any deficiencies in approved mentor-protégé agreement or joint venture agreement) Size Appeal of First Financial Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-5869 (2017) (fact that protested firm's parent company, with which it is affiliated, is non-profit does not render the protested firm ineligible as a small business) Size Appeal of Team Waste Gulf Coast, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5864 (2017) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation because Operating Agreement grants one firm power to block several types of actions (over certain dollar thresholds) that OHA has deemed essential to operating a business, including the creation of debt and the payment of dividends) Size Appeal of Woodlawn Mfg., LTD, SBA No. SIZ-5861 (2017) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation where appellant does not dispute basic findings of ownership and control and mistakenly argues that economic dependence is an additional requirement to find affiliation) Size Appeal of Global Native Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5865 (2017) (dismisses allegations raised for first time on appeal; fact that protested firm's owners are employees of another concern does not establish that either firm has the power to control the other) Size Appeal of Johnson Development, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5863 (2017) (non-profit charitable foundations not exempt from normal rules of affiliation and Area Office correctly found affiliation through (i) identity of interests among family members absent any showing of clear fracture between them and (ii) common management; appellant not entitled to exclude revenues from transactions between affiliates to which it was not a party) Size Appeal of Native Energy & Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5858 (2017) (firm that acquired only small surviving portion of predecessor firm is affiliated only with that portion and not the entire predecessor firm; no affiliation of firms through common management because challenged individuals did not hold management positions in alleged affiliate; no violation of identity of interest regs because challenged spouses did not control any companies not included in SBA's calculations) Size Appeal of LSINC Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5856 (2017) (after lengthy litigation history, OHA finds appellant has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome presumption of economic dependence when small business has consistently derived more than 70% of its income from large business for prior period of several years and continuing even after the date of size determination) Size Appeal of MEGEN-AWA2, LLC , SBA No. SIZ-5845 (2017) (Area Office correctly found two firms were affiliated under identity of interest rules because their owners were brothers and there was no clear fracture between them because both firms were in the same line of business and had participated in joint ventures together)Size Appeal of Olgoonik Diversified Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5825 (2017) (Area Office erred in finding appellant: (i) was in a joint venture with two sister companies; (ii) Area Office also erred in finding appellant affiliated with sister companies under ostensible subcontractor rule because they were not subcontractors and because appellant is a business concern owned and controlled by an ANC, and is not considered affiliated with other concerns owned by that ANC because of common ownership, common management, or performance of common administrative services. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(b)(2)(ii)) Size Appeal of Alpine/First Preston JV II, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5822 (2017) (protester's joint venture agreement met requirement of 13 C.F.R. § 124.513(c)(6), requiring provision "[i]temizing all major equipment, facilities, and other resources to be furnished by each party to the joint venture, with a detailed schedule of cost or value of each. . . .") Size Appeal of Gregory Landscape Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5817 (2017) (affirms Area Office finding that firm owned 51% and 49% by wife and husband respectively is affiliated, though identity of interest, with firm owned by husband's parents and siblings in which husband is a major employee) Size Appeal of INV Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5818 (2017) (reverses Area Office's finding of affiliation under totality of circumstances because Area Office's findings of fact did not support conclusion that either allegedly affiliated firm could control the other or that individual was key employee of allegedly affiliated firm) Size Appeal of CTSI-FM, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5809 (2017) (although Area Office correctly found affiliation based upon identity of interest between two brothers, Area Office erred in finding affiliation with another firm through common management because challenged individual held no management position with allegedly affiliated firm) Size Appeal of ProSol Assocs., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5813 (2017) (Area Office correctly found affiliation based on identity of interest among family members because protester failed to establish clear fracture between father and son) Size Appeal of Quadrant Training Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-58 (2017) (after remand from CoFC, affirms prior decision's finding of affiliation because document court directed OHA to consider did not support conclusion that SBA had extended approval of mentor-protégé relationship for another year) Size Appeal of First Nation Group d/b/a Jordan Reses Supply Co., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5807 (2017) (Area Office erred in finding affiliation under totality of the circumstances based on a subordinated, unsecured note that does not give one firm the power to control the other) Size Appeals of MPC Containment Systems, LLC, and GTA Containers, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5802 (2017) (on remand after prior OHA decision, Area Office correctly found protested firm was manufacturer and there was no affiliation through identity of interest because firm was widely held by entities who had competing interests) Size Appeal of MDW Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-5794 (2016) (upholds Area Office's finding of affiliation through economic dependence less than two months after date on which previous size determination found such affiliation where firm has not shown any change in circumstances that would warrant a different conclusion) Size Appeal of Quigg Bros., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5786 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined that appellant had failed to rebut presumption of identity of interest among brothers) Size Appeal of Sage Acquisitions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5783 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined that 8(a) member of purported mentor-protégé joint venture did not satisfy requirement that it perform more than administrative and ministerial functions) Size Appeal of BryMak & Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-5777 (2016) (Area Office erred in finding affiliation based on familial identity of interest between stepmother and stepchild despite clear evidence presented by appellant that the two were not close (in fact, were estranged) and had no significant ongoing ownership or business interests in one another's firms) Size Appeal of Veterans Technology, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5763 (2016) (upholds Area Office finding of affiliation through economic dependence because challenged firm derived more than 70% of its revenues from a large business for each of past three years) Size Appeal of Human Learning Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5769 (2016) (reverses Area Office; founder of protested firm was not officer, director, or key employee of prior firm; therefore, no affiliation with prior firm under newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of Quadrant Training Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5768 (2016) (reverses Area Office decision because the evidence in the record did not support the Area Office's conclusion that the protested firm's mentor-protégé agreement had been approved and renewed during its annual review; therefore, the protested firm is affiliated with its joint venture partners) Size Appeal of CoSTAR Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5765 (2016) (on remand from OHA, Area Office properly limited its inquiry to whether two individuals had identity of interest and properly concluded they did not) Size Appeal of Tenax Aerospace, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5747 (2016) (remands case to Area Office for determination whether new SBA Size Policy Statement No. 3 requires new analysis of interaffiliate transactions)
Size Appeals of GTA
Containers, Inc. and MPC Containment Systems, LLC, SBA No. Size Appeals of Insight Environmental Pacific, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5756 (2016) (Area Office correctly concluded from Operating Agreement that LLC was a joint venture and that, therefore, its members were affiliated for purposes of the protested procurement) Size Appeal of WISS Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5729 (2016) (affirms Area Office decision that joint venture was other than small for purposes of particular procurement because expired mentor-protégé agreement that would allow exception to affiliation rules for 8(a) joint venture had not been renewed as of date proposal for procurement was submitted) Size Appeal of Core Recoveries, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5723 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined that firm was affiliated with company from which it derived more than 70% of its revenues via a subcontract, based on concept of economic dependence) Size Appeal of W. Harris, Government Services Contractor, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5717 (2016) (Area Office correctly found affiliation through identity of interest based on two common investments of substantial value) Size Appeal of W&T Travel Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5721 (2016) (reverses and remands case because Area Office's analysis of identity of interest between family members was flawed and Area Office failed to consider whether two firms were affiliated based on "a longstanding inter-relationship or contractual dependence between the same joint venture partners . . . ." 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)) Size Appeal of North Star Magnus Pacific Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5715 (2016) (Area Office correctly considered members of joint venture as affiliates because term of previous year's 8(a) mentor-protégé agreement had expired and agreement had not yet been renewed) Size Appeal of Government Contracting Resources, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5706 (2016) (Area Office correctly determined that two firms were affiliated under the minority shareholder rule at 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(c)(2) where the protested firm was one of 20 equal owners of the alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Tenax Aerospace, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5701 (2015) (upholds Area Office's finding of affiliation through identity of interest where firms had significant number of common investments; upholds finding of affiliation where multiple minority owners had approximately equal ownership interests; overrules holding in Size Appeal of Mark Dunning Industries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5488 (2013) that a finding of affiliation under 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(c)(2) may be rebutted by existence of a quorum requirement; in calculating combined receipts, Area Office not required to exclude inter-affiliate transfers to which challenged firm was not a party) Size Appeal of Potomac River Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5689 (2015) (Area Office correctly found affiliation where operating agreement governing LLC required 75% owner approval of all major decisions and large business owned 48% interest in firm) Size Appeal of Olgoonik Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5669 (2015) (under exception announced in Argus and Black to general rule that firm is economically dependent on business from which it derives more than 70% of its income, protested firm here is not affiliated with large business because protested firm is newly formed, actively seeking business apart from alleged affiliate, and could not be sustained by revenue from its contract with alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of IEI-Cityside, JV, SBA No. SIZ-5664 (2015) (joint venture agreement of mentor-protégé joint venture competing for a non-8(a) procurement lacks specificity required by 13 C.F.R. §§ 124.513(c) and (d)) Size Appeals of G&C Fab-Con, LLC, SBA No. Siz-5649 (2015) (affirms Area Office finding that firms are affiliated through common management because family members with identity of interests hold several important management positions; in determining revenues, Area Office properly declined to exclude (i) transactions between affiliated firms that did not involve the protested firm and (ii) transactions between the protested firm and an affiliate (because they were not parent-subsidiary) Size Appeal of Tactical Micro, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5646 (2015) (Area Office correctly decided protested firm was not affiliated with other firms through common ownership or management or as a result of asset purchases and did not violate ostensible subcontractor rule)Size Appeal of Medical Comfort Systems, Inc., and B&B Medical Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5640 (2015) (Area Office correctly determined that past affiliation between firms had ended well before date for determining size and that identity of interest analysis did not apply because no evidence of economic dependence or firms being owned by family members or common investors) Size Appeal of MCH Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-5622 (2014) (upholds Area Office finding that as of date of self-certification, clear fracture overcame familial identity of interest between parents and child. Despite paucity of analysis of issue by Area Office, protester had not presented sufficient evidence for its contention that protested firm was affiliated with nonprofit firms) Size Appeal of Kisan-Pike, A Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5618 (2014) (affirms Area Office finding that firms were affiliated by virtue of joint venture agreement because provisions of agreement between mentor and 8(a) protégé did not meet requirements of 13 C.F.R. §§ 124.513(c) and (d)) Size Appeal of Glucan Biorenewables LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5608 (2014) (affirms Area Office determination that firm did not meet SBIR requirement at 13 C.F.R. 121.702(a)(1)(i) that it be "more than 50% directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals (who are citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States), other small business concerns (each of which is more than 50% directly owned and controlled by individuals who are citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States), or any combination of these" because it was 13% owned by an entity that was not a small business, and 48% owned by an entity that was not controlled by individuals) Size Appeal of Radant MEMS, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5600 (2014) (affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation through common management--same person is President of two companies) Size Appeal of Quality Services International, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5599 (2014) (affirms Area Office's finding that numerous joint ventures (and contracts) between protested firms, although significant, did not establish general affiliation) Size Appeal of FTSI-Phelps, JV, SBA No. SIZ-5583 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined JV members to be affiliates when one member graduated from 8(a) program before priced offers in response to solicitation were due and members could no longer claim exemption for mentor-protégé agreement) Size Appeal of Harbor Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5579 (2014) (affirms Area Office finding that firms were not affiliated through common management or by virtue of mentor-protégé agreement) Size Appeal of Industrial Support Service, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5576 (2014) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation by identity of interest among various family members) Size Appeal of Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5564 (2014)(affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation by identity of interest of husband and wife), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of Crosstown Courier Service Incorporated, SBA No. SIZ-5571 (2014) (Area Office did not adequately investigate issue of whether firms were affiliated through close family relationships) Size Appeal of Knight Networking & Web Design, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5561 (2014) (Area Office correctly found affiliation through identity of interest of family members) Size Appeal of Industria Lechera de Puerto Rico, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5533 (2014) (affirms Area Office finding that firm is affiliated with Commonwealth of Puerto Rico because government officials have power to control firm's parent company); petition for reconsideration dismissed Size Appeal of Lukos-VATC JV, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5532 (2014) (Area Office correctly concluded JV firms were affiliated because mentor-protégé agreement was not approved until two days after JV submitted offer on procurement in question) Size Appeal of Drace Anderson Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5531 (2014) (grants size appeal because Area Office, without explanation, failed to consider whether Appellant was eligible for the exception to affiliation for mentor-protégé joint ventures under 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(3)(iii)) Size Appeals of Real Estate Resource Services, Inc. and OneSource REO, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5522 (2013) (Area Office properly concluded firms were not affiliated because former affiliation ended well before date of size certification; Area Office had no obligation to investigate possible affiliation not raised in original protests) Size Appeal of BA Urban Solutions, LLC, et al., SBA No. SIZ-5521 (2013) (affirms Area Office denial of size protests because (i) size was correctly determined as of date of initial offer; (ii) Area Office correctly based calculation of receipts on period of measurement in 13 C.F.R. 121.104(c)(3) rather than 121.104(c)(2) for firm that had been in business for three complete fiscal years, one of which was a "short year"; and (iii) Area Office properly concluded there was no affiliation through negative control) Size Appeal of Seacon Phoenix, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5523 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through identity of interest because two individuals shared common investments in a group of companies) Size Appeal of US Builders Group, SBA No. SIZ-5519 (2013) (Area Office erred in finding firms affiliated through common management and identity of interest) Size Appeal of Alterity Management & Technology Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-5514 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation under newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of Cambridge International Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5516 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that there was no affiliation through common management among various firms) Size Appeal of Advanced Projects Research, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5504 (2013) (remands case to Area Office to determine whether an oral operating agreement exists between members of firm to limit one individual's power to control it) Size Appeal of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5501 (2013) (upholds Area Office finding of affiliation through identity of interest) Size Appeal of Aerospace Engineering Spectrum, SBA No. SIZ-5497 (2013) (Area Office erred in finding general affiliation between members of joint venture because it incorrectly applied the "3-in-2" rule that was applicable at the time of the size determination) Size Appeal of Washington Patriot Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5491 (2013) (overturns Area Office finding of affiliation because it did not explain how buyout of former 49% owner at substantially more than fair market price enabled former owner to continue to control firm) Size Appeal of Willowheart, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5484 (2013) (reverses Area Office finding of affiliation because former affiliate was dissolved in bankruptcy prior to date of size determination and new firm only took over assets involved in performance of one of former affiliate's contracts) Size Appeal of Saint George Industries, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5474 (2013) (affirms Area Office determination that two firms were affiliated under newly organized concern rule because key employee (albeit for only 90 days) of predecessor firm founded new firm) Size Appeal of Marple Fleet Leasing, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5479 (2013) (upholds Area Office's determination that firms are affiliated because same individual is majority owner of both) Size Appeal of AudioEye, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5477 (2013) (although Area Office erred in finding firm affiliated with one company through the newly organized concern rule and the totality of the circumstances, it was correct in finding affiliation with another through common management and in drawing adverse inference from firm's failure to provide requested tax returns for that affiliate) Size Appeal of Alares, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5471 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that protested firm is not affiliated with others by virtue of negative control by minority owners or otherwise) Size Appeal of Global, A 1st Flagship Company, SBA No. SIZ-5462 (2013) (reverses Area Office finding of affiliation between protested firm and large business that had been parent of affiliate protested firm recently acquired because (i) under totality of circumstances analysis, the 10 interactions between companies cited as support by Area Office were either irrelevant or no longer in effect as of relevant date; and (ii) Area Office improperly analyzed situation under successor-in-interest rule instead of newly acquired affiliate rule) Size Appeal of Heard Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5461 (2013) (remands case to Area Office to consider possible effects of very recent merger on affiliation and, therefore, size) Size Appeal of A & H Contractors, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5459 (2013) (reverses Area Office's finding of affiliation because historic association and personal friendship of individuals not sufficient to find such affiliation) Size Appeal of OBXtek, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5451 (2013) (reverses Area Office's determination of affiliation through economic dependence) Size Appeal of Washington Patriot Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5447 (2013) (affirms finding of affiliation through negative control by minority owner) Calculation of Annual Receipts; Revenues; Number of Employees Size Appeal of GC&V Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6236 (2023) (Area Office correctly used ownership percentage to calculate affiliated firm's receipt from joint ventures of which it was a member, which rendered affiliated firm (and, thus, appellant) other than small even after deducting amounts already accounted for in affiliated firm's tax returns to avoid double-counting) Size Appeal of LuminUltra Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6155 (2022) (denies size appeal because there is no mechanism in SBA regulations for excluding from revenue proceeds of short term contract to respond to pandemic emergency Size Appeal of Swift & Staley, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6095 (2021) (members of a populated joint venture are required to assume their proportionate share of joint venture receipts, and Area Office did not err in using Appellant's percentage of ownership in populated joint venture to determine Appellant's proportionate share of receipts) Size Appeal of Obsidian Solutions Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6076 (2020) (Runway Extension Act's five-year measurement period for revenues did not apply to appellant's size certification and determination; proper measure was three-year period) Size Appeal of Diversified Protection Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6042 (2019) (adheres to decision in Cypher Analytics that Runway Extension Act requirements did not apply prior to effective date (January 6, 2020) of new SBA regs implementing Act's provisions) Size Appeal of MicroTechnologies, LLC d/b/a MicroTech, SBA No. SIZ-6039 (2019) (in determining size based on average annual receipts, Area Office correctly included revenues received during computation period by division that subsequently was sold) Size Appeal of Advanced Technology Systems Co., SBA No. SIZ-6034 (2019) (Area Office did not err in computing firm's receipts using three-year rather than five-year period because regulations had not yet been promulgated implementing requirements of Runway Extension Act; follows precedent of Size Appeal of Cypher Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Crown Point Systems, SBA No. SIZ-6022 (2019)) Size Appeal of Kingfisher Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6003 (2019) (upholds Area Office's determination that firm's average annual receipts exceeded size standard because firm had not provided any explanation to Area Office as to why the normal rule that receipts equals income was inapplicable in this case and that position was not evident from the tax-related documents firm had supplied to Area Office) Size Appeal of Birmingham Industrial Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5984 (2019) (in failing to make any deductions for interaffiliate transactions to calculate average annual receipts of affiliated companies, Area Office erred by assuming Appellant's tax returns took into account interaffiliate transactions simply because its financial statements were consolidated, where Appellant made no such statement, and where each entity filed its own separate tax return) Size Appeal of Nordstrom Contracting & Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5891 (2018) (in computing challenged firm's size for receipts-based size standard, Area Office properly did not consider: (i) tax return for fiscal year that was not completed at time of self-certification; and (ii) data from USASpending.gov because "there is no authority for an area office to consider any evidence apart from tax returns (when they have been filed) when calculating a firm's average annual receipts") Size Appeal of Teracore, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5830 (2017) (Area Office correctly used tax return filed after date of self-certification but available during size determination in calculating firm's size) Size Appeal of Newport Materials, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5733 (2016) (affirms Area Office decision that, in calculating total receipts of a firm and the companies affiliated with it through common ownership, the receipts of one of those affiliates did not satisfy any of the three requirements for exclusion as inter-affiliate transfers) Size Appeal of Financial & Realty Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5719 (2016) (Area Office correctly based its decision on revenues as reported in federal income tax returns submitted by protested firm, correctly determined size as of date of self-certification with priced offer) Size Appeal of McLaughlin Research Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6273 (2024) (although arguments raised by appellant, itself, on appeal are meritless, version of 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a)(1)(iv) effective at the relevant time for this appeal stated that size under for unpriced IDIQ MAC was to be determined at time of award rather than at time of order so case is remanded to SBA to examine under the correct version of the reg) Size Appeal of Imagine One Technology & Management, Ltd., SBA No. SIZ-6271 (2024) (challenged firm was not required to recertify its size for set-aside task order award under former version of SBA regs applicable at that time; there was no change in controlling ownership necessitating a recertification because owner retained majority interest) Size Appeal of Forward Slope, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6258 (2023) (Area Office correctly concluded that a firm which represented itself as small in connection with underlying MAC contract did not have to re-certify for purposes of a task order solicitation that did not require recertification, even when the firm had been acquired by another firm before the task order solicitation issued) Size Appeal of Avenge, Incorporated, SBA No. SIZ-6178 (2022) (firm required to recertify at time of task order solicitation under multiple award contract because underlying contract stated individual orders would be limited to small businesses even though individual task order solicitation did not specifically state recertification was required) Size Appeal of Modern Healthcare Services, J.V. LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6114 (2021) (regulation in effect at time of firm's self certification as small required firm to recertify its size status for multiple award contract award that was made as a result of a GAO protest of the original award because the challenged firm had been acquired by another firm between the dates of its original offer and the final award) Size Appeal of 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6122 (2021) (Area Office correctly determined that, despite the fact that the solicitation omitted certain standard information, there was sufficient information to determine that it was a small business set-aside and that re-certification of small business status was required for a task order and that appellant was not small in these circumstances) Size Appeal of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6066 (2020) (firm that purchased company (including all its manufacturing facilities and assets) prior to submission of firm's final proposal revisions would thenceforth be manufacturing the contract items, itself, and, thus, did not violate either ostensible subcontractor rule (which is inapplicable to procurement under NAICS code 391115 ("Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing") or nonmanufacturer rule, and the two firms aggregated did not exceed the applicable size standard) Size Appeal of Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5978 (2018) (Area Office correctly found that Letter of Intent to merge was sufficient to be given effect as of date of submission of proposals even though merger was not consummated until later) Size Appeal of Stellar Innovations and Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5851 (2017) (Area Office correctly used date of initial priced offer to determine challenged firm's size, rather than date final proposal revisions were submitted after corrective action in response to prior GAO bid protest, as appellant had advocated) Size Appeal of Potomac River Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5844 (2017) (in determining affiliation and size, Area Office correctly disregarded revised operating agreement executed after date of self-certification) Size Appeal of University Strategy Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5840 (2017) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest because Contracting Officer did not require firms to recertify as small businesses for task order under Multiple Award Contract) Size Appeal of Precision Asset Management Corp. and Q Integrated Companies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5801 (2017) (PFR) (denies Petition for Reconsideration because, in deciding issues involving mentor-protégé agreement, no reason to deviate from normal rule that size determined as of date of initial offer) Errors by Area Office Size Appeal of VORAGO Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6242 (2023) (in determining it was other than small, Area Office erroneously relied on ambiguous evidence on a website and a letter not shown to appellant and to which it was not given an opportunity to respond rather than evidence submitted by appellant) Size Appeals of Master Boat Builders, Inc., Steiner Construction Company, Inc., SBA No. 6198 (2023) (remands case to Area Office because it had (i) incorrectly determined that challenged firm was the manufacturer under the nonmanufacturer rule absent any lease arrangement establishing that the firm would manufacture the contract items at its own facilities; and (ii) failed to investigate protesters' allegations regarding affiliation), petition for reconsideration denied Size Appeal of Veterans Care Medical Equipment, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6176 (2022) (remands case to Area Office because it erroneously determined size as of date of initial proposal rather than date of final proposal revisions) Size Appeal of C2 Alaska, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6149 (2022) (in protest only alleging violation of ostensible subcontractor rule, case is remanded to Area Office because it failed to alert the challenged firm that it was considering affiliation based on totality of circumstances) Size Appeal of Leumas Residential, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6091 (2021) (remands case to Area Office because it failed to conduct a required analysis based on the ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Resicum International, LLC. SBA No. SIZ-6024 (2019) (Area Office erred in dismissing protest as nonspecific because protester quickly corrected the problem within the five day time limit for filing a protest) Size Appeal of Birmingham Industrial Constr., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5984 (2019) (in failing to make any deductions for interaffiliate transactions to calculate average annual receipts of affiliated companies, Area Office erred by assuming Appellant's tax returns took into account interaffiliate transactions simply because its financial statements were consolidated, where Appellant made no such statement, and where each entity filed its own separate tax return) Size Appeal of Jacob's Eye, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5895 (2018) (remands case to Area Office for further development of record because, without full copy of appellant's proposal, record was insufficient for Area Office to determine whether appellant had violated ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Veterans Construction Coalition, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5824 (2017) (remands case to Area Office because, based on its mistaken view of the scope of the former exception to affiliation found at 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(3)(ii), it failed to consider protester's allegations that two firms were generally affiliated) Size Appeal of Gregory Landscape Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5793 (2016) (remands case to Area Office because it found affiliation through identity of interest based on findings it did not give firm opportunity to rebut) Size Appeal of REO Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5751 (2016) (remands case to Area Office to determine firm's small business status pursuant to a mentor-protégé joint-venture agreement already determined to be appropriate in a prior protest involving the same parties and the same procurement (but a different geographic area of award) under a multiple-award solicitation that involved a separate contact award for each geographical area) Size Appeal of CoSTAR Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5745 (2016) (remands case to Area Office because it did not adequately investigate allegation that affiliation existed by virtue of common investments in entities that are not companies) Size Appeal of ARNC/Bridge Consulting, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5736 (2016) (harmless error for Area Office to rescind previous size determination after it had been appealed to OHA rather than requesting a remand from the OHA because, had it requested the remand, the OHA would have granted the request even if it had been opposed)
Size Appeal of Mechanix Wear,
LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6098 (2021) (upholds Area Office determination
that firm which would have only one employee supervising activities in
the facility of another firm where production would actually occur was
not the manufacturer)
Size Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6075 (2020) (Area Office correctly determined that nonmanufacturer rule did not apply to procurement because it was below the simplified acquisition threshold) Size Appeal of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6068 (2020) (firm that purchased company (including all its manufacturing facilities and assets) prior to submission of firm's final proposal revisions would thenceforth be manufacturing the contract items, itself, and, thus, did not violate either ostensible subcontractor rule (which is inapplicable to procurement under NAICS code 339115 ("Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing") or nonmanufacturer rule, and the two firms aggregated did not exceed the applicable size standard) Size Appeal of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6066 (2020) (firm that purchased company (including all its manufacturing facilities and assets) prior to submission of firm's final proposal revisions would thenceforth be manufacturing the contract items, itself, and, thus, did not violate either ostensible subcontractor rule (which is inapplicable to procurement under NAICS code 391115 ("Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing") or nonmanufacturer rule, and the two firms aggregated did not exceed the applicable size standard) Size Appeal of ALOG Corp., SBA No. SIZ-6030 (2019) (affirms Area Office determination dismissing protest for, inter alia, lack of standing because orders under contract that originally had been set aside for small businesses no longer were restricted and protested firm had not represented itself as small) Size Appeal of BCI Constr. USA, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6029 (2019) (upholds Area Office's conclusion that firm was not the manufacturer of the end item being procured because its own proposal did not contain any indication it would manufacture the item and indeed stated another firm was the manufacturer) Size Appeal of Cypher Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Crown Point Systems, SBA No. SIZ-6022 (2019) (denies protest alleging that Runway Extension Act requires basing a firm's size on a five- (rather than three-) year revenue period because the Act only applies to establishing a size standard, not to calculating a particular firm's size, and even interpreted as protester claims, Act requires rulemaking procedures be followed before its provisions are implemented, and those procedures have not yet occurred) Size Appeal of Mystic Ventures Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-6006 (2019) (Area Office correctly determined that firm failed to comply with nonmanufacturer rule because it proposed to supply items manufactured by large business) Size Appeal of North Wind Site Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5988 (2019) (in 8(a) procurement, after verifying that offeror had an approved 8(a) mentor-protégé joint venture agreement, it was unnecessary, and would have been improper, for Area Office to conduct separate review of that agreement, and Area Offices are not required to forward all 8(a) eligibility allegations to the Office of Business Development for review) Size Appeal of Cypher Analytics, Inc., d/b/a Crown Point Systems, SBA No. SIZ-5986 (2019) (Area Office correctly determined that firm was ineligible for award because no waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule applied to procurement and firm would not supply end items manufactured by small businesses; Contracting Officer's erroneous announcement to potential offerors that class waiver of nonmanufacturer rule was applicable to procurement was irrelevant because only SBA has authority to issue waivers) Size Appeal of A&Y Government Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5966 (2018) (upholds Area Office's denial of protest because fact that protested firm is owned by foreign company does not preclude it from being eligible for small business set-aside so long as it is based in the United States and contributes to the U.S. economy through the payment of taxes or otherwise) Size Appeal of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SBA No. SIZ-5915 (2018) (upholds Area Office determination that amount of work dredging contractor was to subcontract did not run afoul of admittedly ambiguous note 2 to 13 C.F.R. 121.201 by interpreting note utilizing SBA's comments in regulatory history) Size Appeal of Mistral, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5877 (2018) (Area Office correctly found that firm on small business set-aside was a manufacturer of the end items (CATVs) because the contractor had to do extensive work to bring the supplied items up to the procuring agency's requirements, without which work, the supplied items would be useless to the agency, and (because the solicitation did not require ownership of the manufacturing facilities), the fact that the firm would lease the manufacturing facilities did not mean it was not the manufacturer) Size Appeal of Aerosage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5820 (2017) (Area Office correctly found that firm only offering to use its "best efforts" to comply with nonmanufacturer rule did not meet its requirements) Size Appeal of Coulson Aviation USA, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5815 (2017) (Area Office correctly determined from firm's original proposal that firm was not manufacturer of contract items and firm's wholesale revisions to its proposal in response to protest are irrelevant) Size Appeal of Technology Assocs, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5814 (2017) (Area Office correctly determined that protester was not manufacturer because it would not utilize its “own facilities” to manufacture contract item (ice-breaking tugboat), as required by 13 C.F.R. § 121.406(b)(2)) Size Appeal of Global Submit, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5804 (2017) (Area Office properly declined to publish protested firm's proprietary information in size decision; Area Office correctly applied OHA's longstanding interpretation that 13 C.F.R. § 121.105(a)(1) does not bar foreign-owned small businesses from participating in small business set asides, provided that the small business is based in the U.S. and contributes to the U.S. economy) Size Appeals of ProActive Technologies, Inc. and CymSTAR Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5772 (2016) (remands case to Area Office to analyze whether on solicitation for manufactured items set aside for small businesses, challenged firm qualified as manufacturer under three factors listed at 13 C.F.R. 121.406)
Size Appeals of GTA
Containers, Inc. and MPC Containment Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS Appeal of CueBid Technologies, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6272 (2024) (in solicitation to provide sludge dewatering/drying technology or alternatives for reducing the weight and volume of daily sludge production with maximum drying efficiency through additional equipment installation in waste treatment plant, appropriate choice is NAICS code 541330 ("Engineering Services") as opposed to Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 562211 ("Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal")) NAICS Appeal of Salvadorini Consulting, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6268 (2024) (in solicitation to lease a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine and accompanying trailer, Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 532490 ("Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing") preferable to appellant's choice of NAICS 621512 ("Diagnostic Imaging Centers")) NAICS Appeal of First Nation Group, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6270 (2024) (in solicitation to procure Medical Emergency Alert Devices for agency's Prosthetics Sensory Aid Service, appropriate NAICS code is Contracting Officer's choice of 334220 ("Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing") as opposed to NAICS 334510 ("Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing") NAICS Appeal of Elevated Technologies, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6264 (2024) (in solicitation to replace elevator system, Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 238290 ("Other Building Equipment Contractors") was preferable to contractor's choice of NAICS 236220 ("Commercial and Institutional Building Construction") because the former specifically covers elevator installation and repair according the the NAICS Manual) NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Svcs., LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6259 (2023) (in solicitation for medical coding services at a hospital, OHA chooses its NAICS code 561499 ("All Other Business Support Services") over both Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 541511 ("Custom Coding Services") and contractor's choice of NAICS 561410 ("Document Preparation Services")) NAICS Appeal of Brown Point Facility Management Solutions, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6254 (2023) (in solicitation to perform custodial services and to provide associated management, supervision, labor, transportation, materials, equipment, and supplies at a FEMA facility, contractor's choice of NAICS 561720 ("Janitorial Services") was preferable to Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 561210 ("Facilities Support Services")) NAICS Appeal of Aldevra, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6245 (2023) (in solicitation for contractor to supply and deliver kitchen equipment to a VA medical facility in Honolulu, appellant's choice of NAICS 333415 ("Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing") is preferable to Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 335220 ("Major Household Appliance Manufacturing") NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Svcs., Inc. SBA No. NAICS-6238 (2023) (in solicitation for registered nurse staffing services, Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 561320 ("Temporary Help Services") is reasonable choice, so no need to reach appellant's choice of NAICS 621399 ("Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners")) NAICS Appeal of Gemini Tech Svcs. LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6237 (2023) (in solicitation for wide range of personnel services to Fort Knox personnel, not including consultation and advice on personnel matters, Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 561110 ("Office Administrative Services) is correct, in contrast to appellant's choice of NAICS 541612 ("Human Resources Consulting Services") NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6233 (2023) (no OHA jurisdiction over appeal alleging that Contracting Officer erred in conducting RFQ for BPA under MAC whose only NAICS code was not appropriate for the BPA) NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6216 (2023) (in solicitation for 41 full time radiologic technologists to perform services at VA facilities, NAICS 621512 ("Diagnostic Imaging Centers") is preferable to both contractor's choice of NAICS 621399 ("Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners") and Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 561320 ("Temporary Health Services") )NAICS Appeal of Veterans First Health Care, SBA No. NAICS-6212 (2023) (in solicitation for home oxygen services, Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 621610 ("Home Health Care Services") is preferable to appellant's choice of NAICS 532283 ("Home Health Equipment Rental")) NAICS Appeal of Bridges Systems Integration, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6202 (2023) (untimely appeal of NAICS assigned to order because, as required by regs, it is the same NAICS assigned to underlying MAC and applies to all orders and was not timely challenged) NAICS Appeal of Lindahl Reed Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6197 (2023) (dismissed as moot because solicitation has been amended to adopt NAICS code advocated by appellant) NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6186 (2023) (in solicitation for on site Optometry Provider Services and Ophthalmology Health Technician/Certified Ophthalmic Assistant (COA) services, appellant's choice of NAICS code 621320 ("Office of Optometrists") was preferable to Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 561320 ("Temporary Help Services") NAICS Appeal of Prime Physicians, SBA No. NAICS-6185 (2023) (in solicitation for “professional medical (i.e., clinical) and medical support services to either supplement existing medical staffs or provide full operational services on-site or off-site in support of mission requirements within federal hospitals, clinics, and dental facilities," appellant's choice of NAICS code 621111 ("Offices of Physicians") was preferable to Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 622110 ("General Medical and Surgical Hospitals") NAICS Appeal of Mediterranean Linguistics Services, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6177 (2022) (dismisses appeal after appellant did not respond to show cause notice noting that (i) contract already had been awarded so case was moot; (ii) appellant had not bid on solicitation so lacked standing; and (iii) appeal was untimely) NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6173 (2022) (in solicitation for "Medical Support Assistants / Administrative Professionals to perform a variety of technical support duties," appellant's choice of NAICS code 561110 ("Office Administrative Services") was preferable to Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 561311 ("Employment Placement Agencies") NAICS Appeal of Laredo Technical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6170 (2022) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal filed more than 10 days after solicitation issued because the Q&A did not constitute amendment to solicitation because it did not change any of the terms of the solicitation and, even if it had, it did did not affect the NAICS designation) NAICS Appeal of Noble Supply & Logistics, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6145 (2022) (in solicitation for logistic support services for Alaska, Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS code 493190 ("Other Warehousing and Storage") with a $ 30 million annual receipts size standard was preferable to contractor's choice of NAICS code 339999 ("All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing") with a 500-employee size standard because the primary purpose of the solicitation was not to procure supplies) NAICS Appeal of Elevated Technologies, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6146 (2022) (in solicitation for elevator repair and maintenance services, appellant's proposed NAICS code 238290 ("Other Building Equipment Contractors") was preferable to Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 811310 ("Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance") NAICS Appeal of Air Center Helicopters, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6130 (2021) (dismisses appeal as untimely because it was filed long after the 10-day time limit and the appellant failed to respond to an OHA order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed) NAICS Appeal of Applewood Eng'g, SBA No. NAICS-6119 (2021) (in a solicitation for contractor to perform support for atmospheric modeling and data assimilation, the Contracting Officer's selection of the exception for "Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles, Their Propulsion Units and Propulsion Parts," with a 1,250 employee size standard, to basic NAICS 541715 ("Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)" was not appropriate because the "principal services do not involve evaluations and simulations involving missiles and similar devices" and "a thorough knowledge of these technologies, in the context of Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles") NAICS Appeal of WEC1 Consulting, SBA No. NAICS-6115 (2021) (dismisses appeal filed more than 10 days after solicitation was issued as late; appellant had transmitted only a Certificate of Service with no appeal and even that Certificate was 8 minutes late) NAICS Appeal of Regency Consulting, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6101 (2021) (dismisses appeal as untimely because it was not filed within 10 days of the issuance of the solicitation or any amendment affecting the NAICS designation, even though the appellant had requested the Contracting Officer to change the code and the Contracting Officer had published answers to questions, which included a statement that the Government would accept bids involving either the code in the solicitation or the code suggested by the appellant) NAICS Appeal of Millennium Health & Fitness, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6094 (2021) (in solicitation for Wellness and Fitness Staffing, upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS 713940 (Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers) with a corresponding size standard of $8 million average annual receipts, as opposed to appellant's suggested codes) NAICS Appeal of Taurean General Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6092 (2021) (in solicitation for security support services, upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS 561210 (Facilities Support Services), with a corresponding size standard of $41.5 million average annual receipts, as opposed to appellant's preference of NAICS 541690 (Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services) with an associated size standard of $16.5 million average annual receipts) NAICS Appeal of Salvadorini Consulting LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6082 (2020) (dismisses appeal filed more than 10 days after issuance of solicitation as untimely; appellant's efforts to resolve matter with agency before appealing did not extend the time for filing) NAICS Appeal of Caduceus Healthcare, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6074 (2020) (dismisses appeal as untimely because it was not filed within 10 days of issuance of original solicitation where much later amendment to solicitation did not change the original NAICS code or the nature of the services being solicited) NAICS Appeal of Noble Sales Co., Inc., d/b/a Noble Supply & Logistics, SBA No. NAICS-6067 (2020) (in solicitation for Logistics Operations Solutions Support for agencies operating in and around Hawaii, Contracting Officer's choice of code 493190 (Other Warehousing and Storage) was appropriate because although supplies and products do appear to constitute a majority of contract dollar value, many of the supplies and products must be obtained from mandatory sources of supply) NAICS Appeal of Caduceus Healthcare Services, SBA No. NAICS-6058 (2020) (in solicitation for Airport Security Screening Services at airports participating in TSA's Screening Partnership Program, Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services) was incorrect, and appellant's choice of NAICS 488190 (Other Support Activities for Air Transportation) was appropriate) NAICS Appeal of Lost Creek Holdings LLC d/b/a ALL-STAR Health Solutions, SBA No. NAICS-6050 (2020) (in solicitation for dental services, Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS 621498 (All Other Outpatient Care Centers) was incorrect, and appellant's choice of NAICS 621210 (Offices of Dentists) was appropriate) NAICS Appeal of Innovative Support Solutions, Inc. SBA No. NAICS-6045 (2020) (proper NAICS code in solicitation to perform professional safety surveys at VA facilities was CO's designation of NAICS code 541350 (Building Inspection Services) as opposed to protester's suggestion of NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services)) NAICS Appeal of Paradigm Engineers and Constructors, PLLC, SBA No. NAICS-6040 (2019) (in solicitation for A/E Firm to provide site investigation, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and bid documents for the renovation of a VA Medical Center building, affirms Contracting Officer's amended choice of NAICS 541310 (Architectural Services), with a corresponding $8 million annual receipts size standard as opposed to NAICS 541330 (Engineering Services) with a corresponding $16.5 million annual receipts size standard, which was the original standard applied to the solicitation) NAICS Appeal of EYP Squared Joint Venture, LLP, SBA No. NAICS-6035 (2019) (appeal of NAICS code in presolicitation notice is premature because formal solicitation is still to be issued in the future) NAICS Appeal of Keating Dental Arts, SBA No. NAICS-6033 (2019) (dismisses appeal as moot because solicitation has been canceled) NAICS Appeal of Veterans4You, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6021 (2019) (OHA lacks jurisdiction over NAICS appeal of GPO solicitation issued on behalf of VA because the GPO is a legislative branch agency not subject to SBA requirements) NAICS Appeal of Salvadorini Consulting, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-6020 (2019) (in procurement to lease one new mobile Computerized Tomography (CT) scanner, OHA rejects both the protester's proposed NAICS code 621512 ("Diagnostic Imaging Centers") and Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS 334517 ("Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing") in favor of NAICS code 532490 ("Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing") with a corresponding size standard of $32.5 million average annual receipts) NAICS Appeal of PrimeTech International, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-6014 (2019) (in solicitation for third party logistics and management services for consolidated storage program, OHA rejects both Contracting Officer's selected NAICS code 541614 ("Process, Physical, Distribution, and Logistics") and appellant's proposed alternative of NAICS code 561210 ("Facilities Support Services") in favor of NAICS code 493190 ("Other Warehousing and Storage") with a $27.5 million annual receipts size standard) NAICS Appeal of Oak Grove Technologies, LLC, SBA No. NAICS 5998 (2019) (in solicitation for Army Special Operations Forces Training Support upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS code 611519 ("Other Technical and Trade Schools") as opposed to protester's suggested alternatives, including NAICS code 711310 ("Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities") or 561210 ("Facilities Support Services") NAICS Appeal of Keystone Turbine Services, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5996 (2019) (Contracting Officer erred in assigning NAICS code 488190 ("Other Support Activities for Air Transportation") to solicitation for the repair and overhaul of Rolls Royce model 250 aircraft engines for Navy TH-57 helicopters when the appropriate NAICS code is 336412 ("Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing") with a corresponding size standard of 1,500 employees) NAICS Appeal of Advanced Concepts Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5968 (2018) (in solicitation seeking a contractor to support the Advanced Research Center (ARC), upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS 541715 ("Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)") under the Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles exception, with a corresponding 1,250 employee size standard) NAICS Appeal of Aerial Timber Applicators, Inc. and Western Pilot Service, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5965 (2018) (in solicitation for aircraft services for fire suppression, appropriate NAICS code is 115310 ("Support Activities for Forestry"), falling under the Forest Fire Suppression exception, with a $19 million annual receipts size standard, rather than NAICS code 481212 ("Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation") with a corresponding 1500 employee size standard, which was the code originally chosen by Contracting Officer) NAICS Appeal of Aero Spray, Inc. d/b/a Dauntless Air, SBA No. NAICS-5969 (2018) (dismisses "appeal" of Contracting Officer's new NAICS code designation following successful NAICS appeals to OHA by other offerors of original designation because OHA does not reconsider its NAICS code decisions and appellant failed to participate in original appeals) NAICS Appeal of Veterans Electric, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5951 (2018) (upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS code 236220 ("Commercial and Institutional Building Construction") in solicitation for construction work to install primary patient-to-staff communications and notification system for the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, as opposed to protester's choice of NAICS code 238210 ("Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors")) NAICS Appeal of Technology Security Assocs., Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5950 (2018) (upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS code 541715 ("Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences") in solicitation for cybersecurity solutions and support, as opposed to protester's choice of NAICS code 541512 ("Computer Systems Design Services")) NAICS Appeal of Curtin Maritime Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5947 (2018) (upholds Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS code 561990 ("All Other Support Services") in solicitation for installation of four-point offshore mooring system, as opposed to protester's choice of NAICS code 237990 ("Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction")) NAICS Appeal of Integrity Consulting Engineering and Security Solutions, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5941 (2018) (in solicitation for acquisition and program management support services, Contracting Officer erred in designating NAICS code 541330 ("Engineering Services") and its exception for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons, when appropriate NAICS code was 541611 ("Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services"), although OHA's decision will not apply to the current procurement, having been issued after proposals were due)/font> NAICS Appeal of STG, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5936 (2018) (in solicitation for non-personal IT services and support requirements, affirms Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 541513 (Computer Facilities Management Services) over protester's suggestion of NAICS code 517311 (Wired Telecommunications Carriers), which was the code for the predecessor contract, in part because the term "telecommunications" did not appear in the PWS) NAICS Appeal of Credence Management Solutions, SBA No.NAICS-5914 (2018) (dismisses NAICS appeal against NAICS code designated for order under long term contract because: (i) regulations required Contracting Officer to use specific NAICS code; (ii) appeal is untimely; and (iii) appellant lacks standing since it was not an offeror) NAICS Appeal of Rollout Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5901 (2018) (in Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) solicitation seeking a contractor to provide full spectrum IT engineering and management support services for the RDT&E Infrastructure Division of NAWCAD's Integrated Battlespace Simulation and Test Department, OHA rejects both (i) Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 541715 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)--exception for Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts) with a 1,500 employee size standard and (ii) Appellant's suggestion of NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services), in favor of NAICS 541513 (Computer Facilities Management Services), with a corresponding size standard of $27.5 million average annual receipts) NAICS Appeal of U. S. Small Business Administration, SBA No. NAICS-5899 (2018) (in solicitation for expansion of parking garage at VA hospital, OHA rejects Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS 238120 (Structural Steel and Precast Concrete), with a corresponding $15 million average annual receipts size standard, in favor of NAICS 246220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction), with a corresponding $36.5 million annual receipts size standard) NAICS Appeal of K2 Aerial Application, LLC , SBA No. NAICS-5896 (2018) (dismisses appeal filed 13 days after issuance of solicitation as untimely and also as moot because the contract already awarded) NAICS Appeal of AMEL Technologies, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5892 (2018) (dismisses as untimely appeal filed 40 calendar days after issuance of the RFP, and 18 calendar days after issuance of most recent RFP amendment) NAICS Appeal of Noble Supply & Logistics, SBA No. NAICS-5886 (2018) (in solicitation for Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Store at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, OHA rejects both (i) Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 561110 (Office Administrative Services), with a corresponding $7.5 million annual receipts size standard was incorrect and (ii) Appellant's suggestion of NAICS code 332722 (Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet and Washer Manufacturing), with a corresponding 500 employee size standard, in favor of NAICS 332510 (Hardware Manufacturing), with a corresponding 750 employee size standard) NAICS Appeal of SupplyCore, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5866 (2017) (in unrestricted solicitation for supply chain management in support of tires, Contracting Officer properly assigned NAICS code 493190 (Other Warehousing and Storage ) as opposed to either NAICS code 326211 (Tire Manufacturing, except Retreading) or 336390 (Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing) advocated by Appellant)NAICS Appeal of BLB Resources, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5855 (2017) (in solicitation for Asset Management Services for HUD real estate owned ("REO") properties, proper NAICS code is 531390 (Other Activities Related to Real Estate), with a corresponding $7.5 million size standard, rather than 531210 (Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers), selected by Contracting Officer or 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) advocated by Appellant) NAICS Appeal of Caduceus Healthcare, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5847 (2017) (in solicitation for expert market research, data analytics, recruitment, and advertising services, proper NAICS code is 561311 (Employment Placement Agencies) with a corresponding $27.5 million average annual receipts size standard, rather than Contracting Officer's original designation of code 541612 (Human Resources Consulting Services) with a corresponding $15 million annual receipts size standard) NAICS Appeal of American West Laundry, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5842 (2017) (in solicitation for bulk laundry services, proper NAICS code should have been 812320 ( Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)), with a corresponding size standard of $5.5 million average annual receipts, rather than 812331 (Linen Supply) with an associated size standard of $32.5 million average annual receipts (originally selected by the Contracting Officer) or 812332 (Industrial Launderers) recommended by the SBA) NAICS Appeal of Ascendant Program Services, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5832 (2017) (in solicitation to provide wide range of analytical and planning, design, and construction management support services, Contracting Officer correctly selected NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) rather than any of several alternatives proposed by appellant) NAICS Appeal of Creative Information Technology, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5828 (2017) (in solicitation to provide complete range of support in managing and operating Refugee Processing Center, Contracting Officer reasonably selected NAICS code 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services) rather than NAICS code 518210 (Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services)) NAICS Appeal of LJR Solutions, SBA No. NAICS-5791 (2016) (in solicitation for On-Site Animal Care, Technical Procedures, Formulation and Veterinary Care Services, Contracting Officer reasonably selected NAICS code 541711 (Research and Development in Biotechnology) rather than NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services) as advocated by appellant) NAICS Appeal of LJR Solutions, SBA No. NAICS-5790 (2016) (in solicitation for On-Site Animal Husbandry Support Services of FDA's Animal Care and Use Program, Contracting Officer correctly selected NAICS code 541711 (Research and Development in Biotechnology) rather than NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services) as advocated by appellant) NAICS Appeal of Hendall, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5762 (2016) (in solicitation for support for Public Engagement Platform (PEP) project, Contracting Officer's selection of NAICS Code 511199 (All Other Publishers) was incorrect; NAICS Code 561422 (Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers) should have been selected)
NAICS Appeal of Milani
Construction, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5749 (2016)
(in solicitation for road and infrastructure
improvement around the NAICS Appeal of Dentrust Optimized Care Solutions, SBA No. NAICS 5761 (2016) (Contracting Officer properly assigned NAICS Code 621210 (Offices of Dentists) to solicitation for commercial dental services consisting of dental examinations and dental treatments) NAICS Appeal of Noble Supply & Logistics, SBA No. NAICS-5748 (2016) (Contracting Officer improperly assigned a Retail Trade sector NAICS code to a contract for supplies, instead of a manufacturing or supply NAICS code) NAICS Appeal of Arrowhead Contracting, Inc., SBA No. NAICS 5725 (2016) (upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS code 238990 (All Other Specialty Contractors) in solicitation for Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Repair and Alterations services at Land Ports of Entry, as opposed to the protester's suggestion of NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) NAICS Appeal of Active Deployment Systems, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5712 (2016) (overturns Contracting Officer's NAICS designation but also rejects both of protester's suggestions in favor of NAICS code 532490 (Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing) in solicitation for Rotational Life Support Services)
NAICS Appeal of Fortis Networks, Inc., SBA
No. NAICS-5713 (2016)
(upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS code 238990 (All
Other Specialty Contractors) NAICS Appeal of DCS Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5703 (2016) (upholds Contracting Officer's selection of the exception for Space Vehicles and Guided Missiles, their Propulsion Units, their Propulsion Units Parts, and their Auxiliary Equipment and Parts (the SVGM exception) under NAICS code 541712 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)) in procurement for SEEK EAGLE Modeling, Analysis, and Tools Support 2 (SEMATS 2)) NAICS Appeal of The Tolliver Group, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5705 (2016) (in procurement for programmatic support services, overturns Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS Code 541330 (Engineering Services) under the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons (MAE&MW) exception, in favor of NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services), which covers procurements for administrative and management services, and contracts for advice and consulting services)
VSBC Protest of Aero-Tel Wire Harness Corp., SBA No. VSBC-344-P (2024) (successful protest; challenged firm was not certified SDVOSB for purposes of current solicitation) VSBC Protest of Marathon Industrial Equipment, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-342-P (2024) (successful protest; challenged firm failed to provide requested information concerning extent of SDV's continued employment with outside firm would allow time to exercise required control over challenged firm) VSBC Protest of Systematic Innovations, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-341-P (2024) (denies protest of SDVOSB status because challenged SDVOSB joint venture included a certified SDVOSB as managing venturer and JV agreement was sufficiently detailed as to parties' responsibilities for the indefinite contract contemplated by the solicitation) VSBC Protest of JBL System Solutions, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-340-P (2024) (dismisses protest alleging only that challenged firm is not certified SDVOSB, where record shows challenged firm is certified) VSBC Protest of Systematic Innovations, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-339-A (2024) (challenged firm is qualified SDVOSB JV; joint venture agreement (as supplemented by joint venture operating agreement and addendum) adequately describes equipment and services to be provided by each member of JV, especially for this indefinite procurement; references to "collaboration" in agreements do not give non-managing member of JV negative control where agreements do not give that firm any decision-making authority or the power to block actions or decisions of the managing venturer, which retains the exclusive power and authority to manage the business and affairs of the JV; JV's recordkeeping requirements do not violate SBA regulations) VSBC Protest of McKenna Brytan Industries LLC, SBA No. VSBC-334 (2024) (sustains protest because no evidence challenged firm had applied to SDVOSB certification prior to date of its self-certification and in the instant proceeding, challenged firm produced no evidence to substantiate its claimed SDVOSB status or even argued that it was at least 51% owned, and fully controlled, by one or more service-disabled veterans) VSBC Appeal of NIJI, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-333 (2024) (Operating Agreement did not clearly establish that the service-disabled veteran exercised full discretion and decision-making authority over the day-to-day operations of the business) VSBC Protest of Thunderyard Liberty JV II, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-332 (2024) (denies challenges to the effective date of SDVOSB JV agreement and to various provisions in it, including requirement for two signatures for bank account and descriptions of division of responsibilities and required resources, both of which were only generally described due to the nonspecific nature of solicitation) VSBC Protest of MicroTechnologies LLC, SBA No. VSBC-328-P (2024) (dismisses protest as nonspecific because protest does not provide any credible evidence that challenged firm fails to meet VOSB or SDVOSB requirements listed at 13 C.F.R. Part 128 or the joint venture requirements at 13 C.F.R. § 128.402) VSBC Protest of M Wilkinson Constr. Co., SBA No. VSBC-322-P (2023) (fact that veteran owner who had control over firm lived in different state was not disqualifying, especially where firm did business in multiple states, and fact that minority owner provided building space rent free to firm was not grounds for disqualification either) VSBC Protest of Tomahawk Sourcing, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-318-P (2023) (dismisses protest that failed to timely and effectively respond to OHA order to show cause why protest should not be dismissed as nonspecific) VSBC Appeal of Divinely Elegant Vines LLC, SBA No. VSBC-317-A (2023) (dismisses appeal because it does not allege mistake in original decision; unanimity provision in Operating Agreement eviscerates control by SDV) VSBC Protest of Seventh Dimension, LLC, SBA No. VSBC 315-P (2023) (protest of SDVOSB status of firm is dismissed as untimely and nonspecific) VSBC Protest of Blue Collar Ops, Inc, SBA No. VSBC-314 (2023) (dismisses protest as moot after challenged firm was removed from consideration for award) VSBC Protest of DSoft Technology, Engineering & Analysis, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-312 (2023) (dismisses protest protester admits is untimely) VSBC Appeal of Iron Shamrock, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-311-A (2023) (upholds decision denying VOSB status because multiple provisions of franchise agreement established franchisor, rather than veteran, had control of firm) VSBC Appeal of Amenity Waste Solution, SBA No. VSBC-309-A (2023) (upholds denial of firm's application for certification as SDVOSB because inconsistent information in firm's application did not conclusively establish SDV had requisite authority and control) VSBC Appeal of The Old Breed Svcs., LLC, SBA No. VSBC-305-A (2023) (upholds SBA's determination that appellant was not qualified SDVOSB because, despite repeated requests to do so, appellant failed to submit documentation that demonstrated (a) its alleged mentor-protégé agreement was still in force and (b) its relationships with other affiliated firms with which it was co-located were not disqualifying) VSBC Protest of Arapaho Technical Svcs., LLC, SBA No. VSBC-302-P (2023) (successful protest against SDVOSB status because (i) SDV owned only 50.1 % rather than required 51% of firm and (ii) firm admitted that non-veteran managed or supervised the day-to-day operations of the business), challenged firm's petition for reconsideration denied VSBC Appeal of Murray and Treittel, Inc. SBA No. VSBC-307-A (2023) (SBA erred in determining under 13 C.F.R. § 128.203(e)(2)that appellant was not qualified as VOSB based on fact veteran was only one of five members of Board, without first considering whether the veteran controlled the Board under § 128.203(e)(2), which identifies three situations in which the SBA will deem qualifying veterans to control a Board, one of which is when "[o]ne qualifying veteran owns at least 51% of all voting stock, the qualifying veteran is on the Board of Directors, and no supermajority voting requirements exist for shareholders to approve corporation actions") VSBC Appeal of Verndari, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-306-A (2023) (SBA incorrectly found an SDVOSB ineligible due to negative control where SDV owned majority ownership interest, was Chairman of the Board, and, according to firm's Bylaws, could convene a special meeting of the shareholders, at which the shareholders could vote to remove any or all directors, with or without cause, so that the SDV, as the majority shareholder, would determine the outcome, making the appearance of negative control illusory, because the SDV could remove and replace any directors attempting to block a quorum of the Board) VSBC Appeal of Great Lakes NeuroTechnologies, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-304-A (2023) (dismisses appeal as untimely after appellant failed to respond to OHA show cause order on that issue) VSBC Appeal of Carleton Controls Corp., SBA No. VSBC-303-A (2023) (upholds denial of firm's eligibility as VOSB because Appellant did not demonstrate how its 93.79 % ownership by its 401(k) plan as a trust complied with the direct ownership requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 128.202(a), i.e., that the trust was revocable and that all current beneficiaries of the trust are veterans, and Appellant did provide copies of the actual trust documents)VSBC Appeal of Better Metal, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-301-A (2023) (firm failed to timely file appeal petition to correct address, and its corrected filing was untimely) VSBC Appeal of Vetted Medical Supply LLC, SBA No. VSBC-300-A (2023) (dismisses appeal because email to OHA did not satisfy requirements for appeal petition and appellant subsequently failed to respond to order directing it to correct deficiencies and serve corrected document on all parties) VSBC Protest of New Directions Technologies, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-299-P (2023) (successful protest; non-SDV member of JV has negative control over daily management and operations) VSBC Protest of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, SBA No. 297-P (2023) (JV agreement did not specify responsibilities of each member with regard to contract work and gives non-SDV member negative control through right to hire and fire employees and other HR responsibilities) VSBC Protest of Billet Industries, SBA No. VSBC-295-P (2023) (SDV partner does not control operations because agreement gives both partners equal voice) VSBC Appeal of Horizon Marketing, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-296-A (2023) (affirms SBA's denial of certification as SDVOSB because non-veteran had power to exert negative control over firm and 51% ownership interest was held by a Trust rather than by SDV) VSBC Protest of Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC & ELB Services LLC, SBA No. VSBC 292-P (2023) (although member of joint venture established itself as SDVOSB, joint venture operating agreement failed to comply with applicable regulations in several respects, e.g., it did not name a specific individual as responsible manager, an attachment purporting to fulfill requirement to itemize all major equipment, facilities, and other resources to be furnished by each party to the joint venture was not made part of record, JV agreement failed to specify the responsibilities of the parties with respect to the negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance) VSBC Appeal of Tree Services, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-291-A (2023) (SBA prematurely denied firm's application for certification as VOSB before the deadline the SBA had given the firm to provide additional documentation) VSBC Appeal of Veterans Constr. Midwest Corp,, SBA No. VSBC-290-A (2023) (firm no longer eligible as SDVOSB because it has been 10 years since SDV died and his surviving spouse took over as principal/President) VVSBC Appeal of Perrilliat Enterprises, SBA No. VSBC-282-A (2023) (remands case to SBA because appellant established that in denying its certification as an SDVOSB, the SBA made certain assumptions concerning ownership and control that are not necessarily compelled by the documents it reviewed and that need further examination) VSBC Protest of Elevated Technologies, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-276-P (2023) (dismisses protest against apparent awardee's SDVOSB status because agency canceled award in response to GAO protest) VSBC Appeal of Secutors Consulting Services, LLC, SBA No. VSBC 277-A (2023) (dismisses appeal where appellant failed to comply with OHA order to file new appeal petition to cure deficiencies in original petition) VSBC Appeal of B.E. Scaife Plumbing Company, Inc. d/b/a TamCo Services, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-273-A (2023) (dismisses untimely appeal from determination that firm was not qualified SDVOSB because it had failed to provide requested evidence that its SDV was the highest compensated employee resulting in an adverse inference; original adverse determination was not a "draft" and subsequent email to appellant from agency was not a supplemental determination because it was not denoted as such or signed by someone with authority to make such a determination) CVE Protest of Veteran Electric, LLC, SBA No. CVE-272-P (2023) (challenged firm is eligible SDVOSB because this is a construction contract which it established it would manage and had adequate management experience; protester's allegations ( e.g., undue reliance on subcontractor) were speculative)VSBC Appeal of RTC Investigations and Mediation, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-257-A (2023) (no OHA jurisdiction over denial of certification as SDVOSB due to failure to prove owner is veteran or disabled veteran) CVE Appeal of LpM Supply Inc., SBA No. CVE-255-A (2023) (upholds denial of status as verified SDVOSB because provisions in bylaws requiring majority of directors to take certain actions did not establish requisite control by 51% owner/disabled veteran, and amendment to bylaws was made late (after denial decision) and did not cure the problem, despite multiple opportunities provided by CVE for appellant to address the problem earlier) In the Matter of Partners In Energy, L.L.C., SBA No. CVE-253-A (2023) (franchise agreement gave franchisor power to control franchisee, which was, therefore, ineligible for verified SDVOSB status) VSBC Appeal of Newport Hall, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-260-A (2023) (no OHA jurisdiction over appeal involving only determination that individual had not shown he was a veteran) Matter of Strategic Alliance Solutions LLC, SBA No. VET-278 (2023) (on remand from CoFC overturning prior OHA decision; SDVOSB JV agreement provision requiring approval of non managing venture members for (a) initiation of any claim or litigation under the JV contracts and (b) any final decision to continue prosecution of or settle such litigation or claim is not objectionable) CVE Protest of NEIE Medical Waste Services, LLC, SBA No. CVE-251-P (2022) (dismisses SDVOSB status protest because protested firm is no longer awardee) CVE Protest of Vet Reporting, LLC, SBA No. CVE-250-P (2022) (denies protest against SDVOSB status because Georgia court reporting license is a not required license under solicitation at issue and none of the contract work will take place in Georgia) In the Matter of Jean Frantz Guillaume d/b/a Negro American d/b/a , SBA No. CVE-249-A (2022) (dismisses (for lack of jurisdiction) appeal by applicant whose incomplete paperwork for admission as verified SDVOSB was to be transferred from CVE to the SBA for further processing as of January 1, 2023) Matter of Strategic Alliance Solutions LLC, SBA No. VET-277 (2022) (affirms decision that firm is not eligible as SDVOSB joint venture because it had had failed to comply with the regulatory requirements at 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b)(2)(ii) since initiating certain litigation requires unanimous approval, allowing the non-SDVSB member negative control beyond extraordinary circumstances), disapproved by CoFC and then reversed by OHA CVE Appeal of ISC Intelligent Strategic Coaching and Consulting LLC d/b/a Meineke Car Care Center #2835 , SBA No. CVE-246-A (2022) (dismisses appeal of CVE's denial decision that was not properly served on CVE and did not specify any reason why the CVE's decision was alleged to be erroneous) CVE Appeal of ING Unmanned Aerial Systems LLC, SBA No. CVE-245-A (2022) (upholds denial of application for verification as SDVOSB because amendments to defective Operating Agreement made by applicant after denial of application cannot be considered by OHC (and amended Operating Agreement still contains provisions that might prevent acceptance)) CVE Appeal of Komplete Systems Integrators, Inc., SBA No. CVE-244-A (2022) (upholds decision cancelling firm's status as verified SDVOSB because firm did not show that there was good cause for its failure to timely submit required/requested info to verify its status) CVE Protest of Patriot Strategies, LLC, SBA No. CVE-243-P (2022) (grants protest against joint venture's eligibility for SDVOSB set-aside because joint venture agreement: (i) does not itemize "all major equipment, facilities, and other resources to be furnished by each party to the joint venture, with a detailed schedule of cost or value of each,” as is required by 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b)(2)(vi) and (ii) does not specify "the responsibilities of the parties with regard to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance,” as required by 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b)(2)(vii)) CVE Appeal of Holistic Serendipity LLC d/b/a Native Ceuticals Tampa, SBA No. CVE-242-A (2022) (upholds denial of verified SDVOSB status because affiliate agreement between applicant and another firm imposed numerous restrictions on SDV's control of applicant) CVE Protest of Veterans Care Medical Equipment, LLC, SBA No. CVE-241-P (2022) (after permitting CVE to correct the case file by adding hundreds of exhibits omitted from original file and after permitting challenged firm to submit additional evidence and a sworn declaration to correct erroneous email, finds challenged firm is a standalone firm (rather than its previous form as a JV) majority-owned and controlled by SDV and (based upon evidence OHA permitted the firm to submit in response to the protest even though it was not precisely stated in the underlying agreements) will comply with the "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause for the services portion of the mixed services and supplies contract that is primarily one for services under the assigned NAICS code) CVE Protest of Crosstown Courier Service Inc., SBA No. CVE-239-P (2022) (denies protest of SDVOSB status because (i) firm is 81% owned by SDV who is granted full power to control firm by Operating Agreement, (ii) SDV has sufficient prior managerial experience and experience in the particular area of the current contract is not required; (iii) SDV's outside employment is outside normal business hours so does not interfere with his function as owner of challenged SDVOSB; (iv) alleged affiliation with business that is non-operational with no capital, employees, bank account, or resources and that has applied for dissolution does not affect SDVOSB status; (v) fact that SDV does not reside near SDVOSB's jobsite locations is irrelevant because he resides at SDVOSB's headquarters (his home)) CVE Protest of Eagle Home Medical Corp., SBA No. CVE-238-P (2022) (unsuccessful protest; addendum to approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Agreement adequately identified contract on which JV would work and partners' respective responsibilities and no provision in regulations for finding one joint venturer unduly reliant on the other in this situation) Matter of Gray Venture, LLC, SBA No. VET-276 (2022) (although the SBA erred in faulting the JV agreement for failing to state a purpose by omitting the number of a solicitation that had not yet been issued, it correctly found the agreement failed to identify the specific employee of the SDVOSB who would be managing the contract and failed to specify the responsibilities of the parties with regard to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance) CVE Protest of In and Out Valet Co., SBA No. CVE-237-P (2022) (denies SDVOSB status protest because: (i) SDVs own majority of firm without restrictions; (ii) SDV manages and has exclusive control of firm; (iii) other allegations lack supporting evidence; and (iv) fact that NAICS code for procurement is not listed in SDVOSB's company profile is not valid grounds for SDVOSB protest) CVE Protest of SouthCo Services LLC, SBA No. CVE-228-P (2022) (dismisses SDVOSB protest as moot because protested firm already had been declared ineligible for the award as a result of a successful size protest) CVE Protest of Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc, d/b/a RKE Contractors, SBA No. CVE-232 (2022) (on remand from CoFC, affirms prior decision that definition of "unconditional" ownership discussed in In the Matter of Wexford Group Int'l, Inc., SBA No. SDV-105 (2009) survives subsequent change in regulations and challenged firm Here is not fully controlled by a SDV because it is substantially dependent on a non-veteran) Matter of Transcendence, Inc., SBA No. CVE-227-A (2022) (upholds decision to remove firm from VIP database because firm failed to provide all documents requested by CVE despite multiple extensions providing it additional time to do so) CVE Protest of Reliable Vets, LLC, SBA No. CVE-226-P (2022) (denies protest of SDVOSB status because (i) SDV is 51% owner and sole President, (ii) identity of interest affiliation allegations are irrelevant in an SDVOSB protest, (iii) evidence demonstrates SDV controls both long term and day-to-day issues in the firm, and (iv) there is no supermajority voting requirement limiting that control) CVE Appeal of Advent Capital Inc., d/b/a Alpine Roofing, SBA No. CVE-225-A (2022) (upholds denial of firm's application for verification as VOSB because the trust that owned more than 99% of the firm's stock did not meet the requirements to be considered a fictional veteran (i.e., neither the grantor nor all the beneficiaries were veterans) and there were numerous other problems with the firm's structure that precluded a finding it was owned and controlled by veterans) CVE Appeal of Gruene Shredding, LLC, SBA No. CVE-220-A (2022) (upholds cancellation of verified SDVOSB status because firm failed to present documentation indicating SDV had requisite control and failed to timely update its information following a change in ownership) CVE Appeal of Victory Solutions, Inc., SBA No. CVE-219-A (2022) (upholds cancellation of verified SDVOSB status because firm failed to respond to a Notice of Proposed Cancellation or provide the information required by that notice and failed to prove it had not received the agency's multiple emails alerting it to the notice) CVE Appeal of Watanabe Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. CVE-218-A (2022) (dismisses appeal from cancellation of verified SDVOSB status because appeal failed to allege any errors in reasoning for cancellation), petition for reconsideration denied Matter of Warrior Service Co., LLC, SBA No. CVE-214-A (2021) (upholds cancellation of firm's verified SDVOSB status because firm failed to timely file VA Form 0877 concerning change of ownership) Matter of Greenwater Marine Sciences Offshore, Inc., SBA No. CVE-212-A (2021) (upholds cancellation of firm's verified SDVOSB status because it failed to timely file required documentation of its change from an LLC to a B corporation) Matter of Bravo Federal Consulting, LLC, SBA No. CVE-213-A (2021) (affirms cancellation of firm's position in VIP database because it did not comply with requirement to be listed in SAM database) CVE Protest of Griffin Resources LLC, SBA No. CVE-211-P (2021) (dismisses portion of protest challenging SDVOSB status because (i) not clear procurement was set-aside for SDVOSBs or that protest was filed within five days of notice of award; (ii) original protest did not allege, or provide evidence of, any grounds for status protest set forth at 13 C.F.R. § 134.1003 or any of the eligibility criteria for SDVOSBs at 13 C.F.R. part 125; (iii) issue protester first alleged after show cause notice from OHA (that challenged firm intended to utilize subcontractor for procurement which might impair firm's ability to make independent business judgments) was untimely and seemingly a non sequitur as well) Matter of Joseph M. Walls d/b/a Jailhouse Lawyers Ass'n, SBA No. CVE-209-A (2021) (grants CVE's motion to dismiss because denial of firm's entry as verified SDVOSB in VA's VIP program was based in part on a lack of good character (applicant was on parole after lengthy sentence for several serious crimes), which is not an issue that is appealable to OHA) CVE Protest of Welch Constr., SBA No. CVE-210-P (2021) (denies challenge to SDVOSB's status because it is 100% owned an controlled by SDV with requisite managerial experience who works full time at firm and has demonstrated compliance with limitations on subcontracting) CVE Protest of Valiant Constr., LLC, SBA No. CVE-205-P (2021) (challenged firm established all elements of ownership and control of SDVOSB by SDV and protester offered only allegations and speculation unsupported by evidence) CVE Appeal of The Hope Cos., SBA No. CVE-204-A (2021) (affirms denial of verified status as SDVOSB because franchise agreement and operating agreement contain numerous provisions that restrict SDV's ability to control firm) CVE Protest of Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc., d/b/a RKE Contractors, SBA No. CVE-198-P (2021) (challenged firm is not fully controlled by a SDV because it is substantially dependent on a non-veteran), on appeal, ruling questioned by CoFC and remanded for further explanation by OHA CVE Protest of Land Shark Shredding, LLC, SBA No. CVE-195-P (2021) (protester makes compelling arguments that SDVOSB, which has only a single employee and no apparent experience with secure document destruction, must rely upon a subcontractor to perform the instant contract, in contravention of 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.18(f) and 134.1003(c)); challenged firm's petition for reconsideration denied CVE Protest of Esterhill Boat Services Corp., SBA No. CVE-194-P (2021) (dismisses protest styled as SDVOSB protest that failed to allege any grounds for challenging the status of the SDVOSB but was mainly a disagreement with the manner in which the procurement was conducted) CVE Protest of Avenue Mori Medical Equipment, LLC, SBA No. CVE-192 (2021) (no requirement that controlling SDV must have been the founder of the SDVOSB; SDV's alleged lack of experience at a time years prior to the time at which SDVOSB status is determined is irrelevant; fact that SDV required financing for merger does not disqualify her from being in control; fact that SDV's compensation is only slightly higher than second highest compensated individual does not disqualify her from being in control) CVE Protest of Veterans Command, LLC, SBA No. CVE-191-P (2021) (especially absent any evidence from protester that a non-SDV controls the SDVOSB, SDV with extensive experience who is Chairman of the Board, President/ CEO, and deciding shareholder vote in all decisions clearly controls SDVOSB and protester only speculates that firm is unduly reliant on subcontractors) CVE Protest HamHed, LLC, SBA No. CVE-190-P (PFR) (2021) (denies petition for reconsideration of earlier decision because (i) it raises arguments that could have been raised in original protest (indeed where protester failed to respond to OHA's order to discuss them), (ii) it argues with an SBA regulation, the validity of which OHA lacks the authority to challenge, (iii) there was another basis for the OHA's original decision, and the protester's claim that it was unaware OHA had jurisdiction to address that issue is unavailing because the jurisdiction is clearly spelled out in the governing statute and regulations) CVE Protest of PDS Consultants, Inc., SBA No. CVE-189-P (2021) (agreement in effect at relevant dates for determining SDVOSB status put impermissible limits on SDV's control by requiring him to obtain approval from another business concern for decisions in situations in addition to the "extraordinary circumstances" permitted by the regulations) CVE Protest of First Nation Group, LLC, d/b/a Jordan Reses Supply Co, SBA No. CVE-185-P (2021) (SDVOSB's revised Bylaws, which the OHA finds it may accept even though they were submitted only after a supplemental protest was filed, show acceptable control by SDV; SDV works full time for SDVOSB despite his involvement with other businesses; evidence shows letters of supply in support of SDVOSB's bid were provided to SDV, and not obtained by or provided to mentor) CVE Protest of Blue Cord Development Group, LLC, SBA No. CVE-188-P (PFR)(2021) (grants petition for reconsideration of earlier decision (see case immediately below); SDV's work with the challenged firm establishes he has requisite experience even though his statement of experience prior to that work was vague; evidence in record establishes SDV has requisite authority to control challenged firm; challenged firm provided evidence to sufficiently rebut the presumption of a lack of control by showing that firm's headquarters were located within a reasonable distance from its SDV at the time of the offer for the instant procurement) CVE Protest of Blue CordDev Group, LLC, SBA No. CVE-179-P (2021) (rejects allegation of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because it does not apply to a contract for leased space; challenged firm is not controlled by SDV because he does not have managerial experience of the extent and complexity needed to run the concern, because another firm is so crucial to challenged firm's business operations that SDV cannot exercise independent business judgment without great economic risk, and because SDV lives too far from challenged firm's headquarters to adequately supervise the company) In the Matter of Optimum Low Voltage, LLC dba Optimum Fire & Security, CVE-187 (2021) (dismisses appeal of letter cancelling firm's appearance in VIP database of qualified SDVOSBs because appeal fails to allege any errors in cancellation decision), petition for reconsideration denied CVE Appeal of First State Mfg., Inc., SBA No. CVE-184-A (2021) (upholds decision to remove firm from VIP database of eligible SDVOSBs because firm failed to respond adequately to inquiry under 38 C.F.R. § 74.21 regarding its present responsibility due to conviction of two of its senior officials for bribery followed by consent judgment agreed to by firm to settle allegations in False Claims Act suit) CVE Protest of Land Shark Shredding, LLC, SBA No. CVE-183-P (2021) (dismisses protest as moot because underlying solicitation has been canceled) CVE Protest of Security Logistics Intelligence Constr. Eng'g Co., SBA No. CVE-182-P (2021) (denies protest as factually baseless and speculative in face of clear evidence that protested firm is unconditionally owned and controlled by SDV) CVE Protest of Welch Constr., Inc., SBA No. CVE-181-P (2021) (supplemental allegations filed more than five days after bid opening are dismissed as untimely; denies protest of SDVOSB status of mentor-protégé JV because: (i) firms are not co-located and SDVOSB protégé member of JV is solely owned by SDV; fact that mentor prepares JV bids is not disqualifying; that mentor also "conducts business" with another SDVOSB and is affiliated with a third firm is irrelevant; no facts alleged to support allegation that protégé "might be" unable to perform contract requirements) CVE Protest of HamHed, LLC, SBA No. CVE-180-P (2021) (challenged SDVOSB failed to rebut presumption that SDV (who worked full time for another firm) did not control the SDVOSB) CVE Protest of In and Out Valet Co., SBA No. CVE-174-P (2020) (denies protest because firm is owned and controlled by disabled veteran, is not affiliated with another firm that is merely one of its clients, and will perform the primary and vital contract requirements without undue reliance on subcontractor) CVE Protest of Vet Reporting, LLC, SBA No. CVE-173-P (2020) (denies protest of firm's SDVOSB status for particular procurement because, contrary to protester's allegations, SDV has been shown to work full time during normal business hours for protested firm, and that firm cannot be unusually reliant on subcontractor because it does not plan to subcontract any of the work) CVE Appeal of Taylor Made Solutions, LLC, SBA No. CVE-172-A (2020) (appeal of cancellation of SDVOSB status filed with OHA more than 10 business days after notice of termination is late even though notice of appeal was sent to CVE within 10 days and appellant tried but failed to reach OHA within 10 day period for explanation of appeal process) CVE Protest of Security Operations Group Int'l, LLC, SBA No. CVE-171-P (2020) (protest of awardee's SDVOSB status filed one day late is dismissed as untimely) Matter of Hamstra-Juliet JV, LLC, SBA No. CVE-170-P (2020) (protest not filed within five days of notification of awardee's identity must be dismissed regardless of its merits) CVE Appeal of Starblast, Inc., SBA No. CVE-164 (2020) (dismisses appeal as untimely even though appellant received erroneous oral advice from VA employee recommending appeal to VA, and VA's letter denying CVE application did not provide address or email or phone number for contacting OHA) CVE Protest of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. CVE-163 (2020) (although it pertains to a different solicitation, the facts and issues are essentially identical, so CVE-157-P requires denial of this protest) CVE Appeal of Pro-Sphere Tek, SBA No. CVE-162 (2020) (successful appeal of cancellation of verification in VIP as SDVOSB because CVE did not identify any non-service-disabled veteran persons or entities that control Appellant or articulate any theory as to how any such non-service-disabled veteran persons or entities could potentially control Appellant) Matter of ALOG Corp., SBA No. VET-285 (2020) (stock transfer agreement, especially forced sale provision, places conditions on SDV's ownership and, therefore, firm is not unconditionally owned by SDV) CVE Protest of Superior Optical Labs, Inc., SBA No. CVE-157-P (2020) (denies protest arguing that firm violated ostensible subcontractor rule in procurement involving manufacturing because the regulations cited by the protester (a) apply only to service contracts and (b) did not become effective until after the protested firm had submitted its proposal; also protested firm was owned and controlled by service disabled veterans) CVE Protest of U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, SBA No. CVE-154-P (2020) (in mixed procurement for supplies and services, SDVOSB not unusually reliant on subcontractor because it meets requirement under 13 C.F.R. 125.6(a)(1) that it not subcontract more than 50% of services to entities that are not similarly situated and there are no limits on percentage of supply components of contract that it may subcontract) CVE Protest of U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, SBA No. CVE-153-P (2020) (Contracting Officer may not file a CVE protest when Contracting Officer has not made an award to the challenged firm or notified it that it is the apparent successful offeror) CVE Protest of Covenant Constr. Services, SBA No. CVE-152-P (2020) (sustains protest because challenged firm did not rebut presumption at 13 C.F.R. 125.13(k) that SDV who works full time at another firm does not control day-to-day operations of challenged firm), petition for reconsideration denied VET Appeal of Seventh Dimension, LLC , SBA No. VET-6057 (2020) (JV agreement between SDVOSB and mentor did not comply with requirements at 13 C.F.R. 125.18(b)(2) because the JV agreement gave the non-SDVOSB member veto power over several types of day-to-day actions of the JV) Matter of SDVE, LLC, SBA No. VET-284 (2020) (petition for reconsideration of VET-283 denied) Matter of SDVE, LLC, SBA No. VET-283 (2020) (document characterized by appellant as amendment to Operating Agreement did not even refer to that agreement and thus did not affect conclusion that Operating Agreement did not provide SDV with requisite control of firm) CVE Protest of Spacewave, Inc., SBA No. CVE-149-P (2020) (dismisses as untimely SDVOSB status protest filed more than five days after notification of apparent awardee) CVE Protest of U. S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, SBA No. CVE-148-P (2020) (JV agreement did not satisfy requirements 13 C.F.R. 125.18(b) for SDVOSB joint ventures) CVE Protest of KTS Solutions, Inc., SBA No. CVE-146-P (2020) (SDVOSB JV agreement prepared prior to date solicitation was issued did not meet various requirement of 13 C.F.R. 125.18(b)) In the Matter of JLS Medical Products, LLC, SBA No. CVE-147-A (2020) (upholds cancellation of firm's status as SDVOSB in CVE database because, although CVE erred in finding firm did not meet SDV ownership requirement, firm did not meet control requirement since a non-SDV was a "manager" with broad powers to control daily operations and the SDV would require the non-SDV's consent to undertake important firm actions, and the firm failed to disclose the non-SDV's control interests to CVE) CVE Protest of BMK Ventures, Inc., SBA No. CVE-144-P (2019) (individual is not required to disclose his SDV status on his personal social media accounts (e.g., LinkedIn); documentation establishes that (i) SDV controls SDVOSB by working there from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and (ii) does not spend any time managing real estate holding company set up just for the one SDVOSB property) CVE Protest of Fidelis Design & Constr., LLC, SBA No. CVE-143-P (2019) (protest filed two months after bid opening is untimely) CVE Appeal of David Han d/b/a Coresivity, SBA No. CVE-140-A (2019) (affirms cancellation of firm's SDVOSB status in CVE database for failure to provide information requested by CVE) CVE Protest of Land Shark Shredding, LLC, SBA No. CVE-138-P (2019) (submission of amendment to cure protest that was insufficiently specific (a) is untimely and (b) does not cure the original defect), petition for reconsideration denied CVE Protest of Land Shark Shredding, LLC, CVE-136-P (2019) (dismisses protest of firm's SDVOSB status because contract initially awarded to protested firm had been terminated for convenience) In the Matter of Cali Electric, Inc., SBA No. CVE-135-A (2019) (denies appeal that failed to state why cancellation of SDVOSB status was erroneous) Matter of SDVE, LLC, SBA No. VET-281 (2019) (upholds SBA's determination that firm was not eligible SDVOSB because (i) SDV did not present evidence he had managerial experience in the firm's area of business and (ii) no evidence SDV actually was majority owner of firm) CVE Appeal of Barry Capital Projects, Inc., SBA No. CVE-106-A (2019) (upholds denial of firm's status as an SDVOSB in CVE database because firm failed to rebut finding that SDV lacked requisite managerial and supervisory control over individual who held the state-required operational license for a remodeler) CVE Appeal of LACHIN Architects, apc, SBA No. CVE-133-A (2019) (upholds cancellation of firm's inclusion as verified SDVOSB in VIP database because firm did not: (i) promptly notify CVE of its change in ownership, as required by 38 C.F.R. §§ 74.21(d)(7), (8); or (ii) provide sufficient information for CVE to determine the extent to which a non-veteran participated in firm's management, in contravention of 38 C.F.R. § 74.21(d)(4) )CVE Appeal of The Spartan Group, Inc., SBA No. CVE-128-A (2019) (upholds denial of application for inclusion in VIP database as SDVOSB because there was insufficient evidence that the firm's principal had relevant managerial experience in the firm's line of work) CVE Appeal of Arctic Tundra Supply and Services, LLC, SBA No. CVE-130-A (2019) (dismisses appeal because appellant did not allege or identify any errors in CVE's decision) CVE Appeal of RealSims, LLC, SBA No. CVE-129-A (2019) (affirms removal of firm from VIP database for repeated failures to provide requested documentation) CVE Appeal of Oasys International Corp., SBA No. CVE-126-A (2019) (grants appeal of cancellation from VET database because documentation clearly showed that, through a merger, ownership had been transferred from prior SDV to another eligible SDV) CVE Appeal of Afily8 Government Solutions, LLC, SBA No. CVE-125-A (2019) (denies appeal of firm's removal from VIP database because, in response to requests for information to ascertain its continued eligibility, firm provided inaccurate information concerning its owner's outside employment and failed to provide other requested information concerning its subcontracts) CVE Appeal of SDVC, LLC, SBA No. CVE-123-A (2019) (upholds cancellation of firm's verification in VET database after SDV owner died and firm failed to present evidence that is was still owned and controlled by SDV) CVE Appeal of Veterans 1st Architecture, LLC, SBA No. CVE-122-A (2019) (sustains appeal of denial of firm's application for re-verification in VET database of eligible SDVOSBs because fact that SDV did not have license required by State of Georgia for practice of architecture was not fatal to his ability to manage and control the daily operations of the firm since firm did more than just practice architecture) CVE Appeal of Valor Constr., Inc., SBA No. CVE-121-A (2019) (upholds denial of application because SDV does not have required managerial experience, is prohibited by Bylaws from unilaterally setting salaries, and is employed full-time at another job) CVE Protest of Advanced Management Strategies Group, LLC/Reefpoint Group, LLC, SBA No. CVE-120-P (2019) (sustains protest because challenged firm not majority- owned SDV or by qualified revocable trust in which the SDV is grantor, trustee, and sole current beneficiary) CVE Protest of Crosstown Courier Service, Inc., SBA No. CVE-119-P (2019) (dismisses protest because only allegations it makes (e.g., that protested firm lacks the capability to perform contract) are not within OHA's CVE protest jurisdiction) CVE Protest of Commonwealth Home Health Care, Inc., SBA No. CVE-116-P (2019) (successful protest; although JV between SDVOSB protégé and its mentor firm did not have to satisfy the ownership and control requirements applicable to stand-alone SDVOSBs, it was required to, but did not, comply with the requirement at 13 C.F.R. § 125.18(b) that, as of the date of self-certification, the JV agreement specify the parties' respective contributions to the procurement at issue) CVE Appeal of Supreme Cleaning, Inc., SBA No. CVE-114 (2019) (upholds denial of firm's recertification in VIP database because individual lacked required state licenses to exercise managerial and supervisory control for NAICS codes listed in firm's VIP profile) CVE Appeal of GCBO Sourcing Partners, LLC, SBA No. CVE-112 (2019) (removal of firm from VIP database was justified after firm failed to provide requested documents to demonstrate its continued eligibility) CVE Appeal of Secure2ware, Inc., CVE-111-A (2019) (mere statement that firm did not agree with decision denying application for inclusion in VIP database of SDVOSBs was not sufficient to satisfy burden of proof on appeal of that decision) CVE Appeal of Next Dimension Training, SBA No. CVE-108 (2019) (VA did not err in denying firm's application for inclusion in VIP database of SDVOSB firms because, inter alia, the SDV lived half way across the country from the firm's office and the firm did not demonstrate he had the requisite power to manage and control it) CVE Protest of Veterans Contracting, Inc., SBA No. CVE-107 (2019) (sustains protest of SDVOSB JV's eligibility for protested procurement because JV agreement did not contain required breakdown of JV partners' respective responsibilities for procurement at issue) CVE Protest of Williams Bldg. Co, Inc., SBA No. CVE-105-P (2019) (denies protest alleging lack of control by SDV because (i) he works 60 hours per week at challenged firm and has resigned from previous second jobs and (ii) neither of two "ordinary members" of the firm has power of control because one's position is subordinate to that of SDV and the other is not an officer of SDVOSB and his outside ownership interest is not with a firm that does any business with SDVOSB) CVE Protest of Alpha4 Solutions LLC d/b/a Alpha Transcription , SBA No. CVE-103-P (2019) (upholds qualification of SDVOSB because two of three owners are SDVs; the collective unconditional ownership interests of those two SDVs are at least 51%; and those two SDVs fully control the operations of the SDVOSB)Matter of Progressive X-Ray, Inc., SBA No. CVE-101-P (2019) (OHA's new jurisdiction over protests of eligibility for inclusion in the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) database does not include jurisdiction over bid protests of procuring agency's evaluation of proposals in response to solicitation) Matter of Fairwater Assocs., SBA No. VET-280 (2019) (dismisses protest filed two days after debriefing, but ten days after notice of award, as untimely) Matter of Southern Contracting Solutions III, LLC, SBA No. VET-279 (2018) (joint venture was not eligible to bid as SDVOSB on SDVOSB set-aside because one of joint venture members was not small) Matter of XtremeConcepts Systems, SBA No. VET-273 (2018) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific where protester only alleged that firm was not listed in VA's VetBiz database but procurement was not by VA so such listing was not required) Matter of XtremeConcepts Systems, SBA No. VET-272 (2018) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific where protester only alleged that firm was not listed in VA's VetBiz database but procurement was not by VA so such listing was not required) Matter of BKM Global Corp., SBA No. VET-270 (2018) (remands case to Area Office for further investigation whether, as of the date of certification, SDV was firm's "only" officer) Matter of ASIRTek Federal Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-269 (2018) (upholds SBA's determination that firm was not eligible SDVOSB primarily because its joint venture agreement did not specify the members' responsibilities with respect to the SDVO contract at issue, or, indeed, any SDVO contract at all, but rather only to an unrelated 8(a) procurement)Matter of Analytic Strategies, Inc., SBA No. VET-268 (2018) (vacates SBA's determination; firm that initially was qualified as SDVOSB for multiple-award, task-order contract is eligible for award of task order issued under that contract that is set-aside for SDVOSB's, even though it no longer qualifies as such, so long as Contracting Officer has not required recertification in connection with solicitation for task order award) Matter of Research Solutions, Group, Inc., SBA No. VET-266 (2017) (timely protest did not include objection to firm's SDVOSB status and subsequent protest of status was untimely) Matter of Veterans Contracting Group, Inc., SBA No. VET-265 (2017) (SBA's original determination that disabled veteran did not unconditionally control protested firm is sustained, despite other errors in determination, because provisions of shareholder agreement state that in event of a shareholder's death or incapacity, their shares must be sold to the corporation at the Certificate Value) This position was disapproved and rejected by the Court of Federal Claims at approximately the same time as the OHA issued its decision. Matter of Redhorse Corp., SBA No. VET-263 (2017) (PFR) (dismisses PFR of original OHA decision dismissing SDVOSB status protest as untimely because: (i) PFR relies on arguments that could have been, but were not, made during original protest; (ii) PFR incorrectly interprets 13 C.F.R. 125.18(e)(1)(iii) as creating an exception to normal rule that recertification is not required for particular order unless Contracting Officer requests it; and (iii) Supreme Court's ruling in Kingdomware Technologies does not change SBA's rules in this area) Matter of Redhorse Corp., SBA No. VET-261 (2017) (interpretation of 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.18(e) and .25(d): protest against firm's SDVOSB status, filed after issuance of order set aside for SDVOSBs in option year of GSA Schedule contract was untimely because Contracting Officer had not requested recertification of SDVO status in connection with solicitation for order) Matter of Jamaica Bearings Co., SBA No. VET-257 (2016) (sustains appeal against SBA determination that firm was not eligible SDVOSB because original protest was nonspecific on that issue and SBA should not have considered it) Matter of eKCG, LLC, SBA No. VET-255 (2016) (affirms SBA's finding that the existing 8(a) mentor-protégé agreement did not obviate the need for a firm competing for an SDVO set-aside to comply with SDVO program-specific requirements, particularly 13 C.F.R. § 125.15(b)) 8(a) Business Development Program Decisions Matter of Monbo Group Int'l, Ltd., SBA No. BDPE-606 (2023) (dismisses appeal of suspension from 8(a) program because firm did not file a timely appeal petition that included a "clear and concise statement of the factual basis of the case and applicable legal arguments" as required by 13 C.F.R. § 134.203(a)(3))
Matter of Brendan Lau
Agricultural LLC, SBA No. BDPE-603 (2022) (denies appeal of
denial of entry into 8(a) program because unrebutted evidence in
record contradicted petitioner's assertion that it only worked limited
hours outside standard business hours for firms in addition to
applicant)
Matter of 3BG Marketing Services,
LLC, SBA No. BDPE-602 (2022) (dismisses appeal of denial of entry
into 8(a) program because (i) denial was based on failure to demonstrate the potential to successfully meet the business development objectives of the 8(a) program rather than negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership or control
and (ii) petitioner failed to respond to SBA's motion to dismiss)
Matter of LFM Industries, Inc.,
d/b/a Massey Industries, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-601 (2022) (dismisses
appeal of termination from 8(a) program because the appeal was filed
late (the fact that the termination notice initially went to the
appellant's junk email folder being no excuse) and failed to comply
with other requirements for such appeals)
Matter of iHealth Innovative
Solution, SBA No. BDPE-600 (2022) (upholds decision denying firm
entry into 8(a) program because the record did not clearly establish
that the total number of hours worked by the firm's disadvantaged
manager during the firm's normal business hours was sufficient under
the regulations given his concurrent work at another firm)
Matter of SJ Innovations, LLC,
BDPT-599 (2022) (upholds decision terminating firm from 8(a)
program because its owner's AGI over the previous three years exceeded
the applicable standard for economic disadvantage of $350,000)
Matter of Geotechnical Innovation, PLLC, SBA No. BDPT-598
(2022) (upholds termination of firm from 8(a) program for failure
to submit required Annual Review information despite numerous
reminders from SBA to do so, the pandemic being no justifiable excuse
for that failure)
Matter of M Patterson Services,
LLC, SBA No. BDPE-597 (2022) (upholds SBA's denial of entrance
into 8(a) program due to insufficient evidence of social disadvantage,
where petitioner sought de novo review by OHA rather than
presenting evidence of any alleged errors in agency's determination)
Matter of Nu-Life Medical
Equipment and Supplies, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-596 (2021) (dismisses
appeal of termination from 8(a) program for lack of jurisdiction
because the only allegation (that the requirement to file required
reports and documents to SBA was burdensome) is not a basis for an
appeal)
Matter of United Systems of
Arkansas, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-593 (2021) (affirms SBA's denial of
entry into 8(a) program; SBA properly included income from separate
firms in owner's income to determine that he was not economically
disadvantaged)
Appeal of Governance and Information Technology Program Management, LLC, SBA No. BDP-6112
(2021) (dismisses, for lack of jurisdiction, appeal of SBA
District Office's determination that 8(a) firm was ineligible for
specific contract award)
Matter of American Power, LLC,
SBA No. BDPE 590 (2021) (affirms SBA's determination that firm is
ineligible for 8(a) program because it failed to establish by
preponderance of evidence that its Azerbaijani Turkish-American, Muslim
owner had experienced economic and social disadvantage based on
his immigrant status, origin from a Muslim majority nation, race,
ethnicity, and religious beliefs)
Matter of GTEC Industries, Inc.,
BDPE-589 (2021) (upholds denial of application for entrance in
8(a) program because firm did not qualify as a tribally-owned concern
recognized by the cognizant state governmental agency)
Matter of SJ Innovations, LLC,
SBA No. BDPT-588 (2021) (no jurisdiction of appeal filed before
final notice of termination from 8(a) program issued by SBA)
Matter of GeologyReview, LLC, BDPE-586 (2020) (no OHA jurisdiction over
appeal of denial of admission into 8(a) program for reasons other than a negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership, or control)
Matter of Sonoran Construction
Group, aka Sonoran Equipment Appraisal, SBA No. BDPT-581 (2020)
(affirms termination of firm from 8(a) program because
disadvantaged owner worked for another firm during normal business
hours)
Matter of Spectrum of Floors,
LLC, SBA No. BDPE-580 (2020) (SBA erroneously double-counted value
of a rental property in determining majority owner's adjusted net
worth)
Matter of Caduceus Healthcare, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-578 (2019) (by
way of summary judgment, approves SBA's
termination of firm from 8(a) program because owner's personal net worth exceeds the $750,000 limit prescribed by 13 C.F.R. § 124.104(c)(2), and his total assets exceed the $6 million limit prescribed by 13 C.F.R. § 124.104(c)(4))
Matter of
GTEC Industries, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-576
(2019) (OHA lacks jurisdiction
over appeal from SBA's denial of entry into 8(a) program based on
finding that firm did not meet potential for success
requirements for tribally-owned entities at 13 C.F.R. § 124.109(c)(6))
Matter of 7Skyline, LLC,
SBA No. BDPE-574 (2019)
(affirms SBA's denial of entry into 8(a)
program
because much of information
offered to support claim of social disadvantage was vague, conclusory,
and lacking in detail, was unrelated to applicant's personal
experiences, or was insufficient to show that (a) alleged incidents of
discriminatory conduct adversely affected individual's entry into, or
advancement in, the business world or (b) alleged social disadvantage
was both "chronic and substantial" as required by the applicable
regulations) Matter of Corporate Portfolio Management Solutions, SBA No. BDPT-567 (2018) (dismisses appeal of SBA's decision to terminate firm from 8(a) program due to conduct indicating a lack of business integrity for (a) its failure to pay money it owed to another firm and (b) its failure to comply with an arbitration agreement (which had resulted in the entry of a civil judgment against it) because petitioner failed to raise any evidence at the OHA that the SBA's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of any law) Matter of KC Consulting, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-563 (2017) (upholds decision to terminate firm from 8(a) program because it failed to submit all required Annual Review update information despite receiving two separate requests for it) Matter of ORB Solutions Inc., SBA No. BDPE-559 (2017) (in denying application for admission of firm to 8(a) program based on finding that its owner was not economically disadvantaged, SBA (i) properly counted amount of advance to claimed disadvantaged owner of 8(a) applicant as asset because evidence did not establish it was a loan whose repayment was required; (ii) properly characterized personal loan from owner to applicant 8(a) firm as an asset of owner; and (iii) reasonably valued purchase agreements for corporate investments to purchase properties and an office for applicant firm in India) WBC, WOSB and EDWOSB Decisions In the Matter of WOOD Consulting Svcs., Inc., SBA No. WOSB-119 (2023) (woman owner of computer firm who worked there from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm every weekday, and then worked at another firm from 3:30 to 5:30 pm and then from 7:30 to 10:30 pm plus weekends had control of WOSB and her other job did not interfere, especially where the WOSB's business was computer programming, which does not require that work be conducted from 9 to 5. Fact that she had the power to remove anyone including her husband from their position on the board showed that any alleged control he had was illusory) In the Matter of SonCoast Procurement, LLC, SBA No. WOSB-117 (2022) (fact that firm was currently performing contract as WOSB did not automatically qualify it as WOSB for new procurement) In the Matter of Data Analytics Corp., SBA No. WOSB-116 (2022) (no OHA jurisdiction over appeals of decisions denying admission into WOSB program) In the Matter of Idaho Heatseeker, LLC, SBA No. WOSB-115 (2022) (no OHA jurisdiction over appeals of decisions denying admission into WOSB program) In the Matter of Joint Information Network, SBA No. WOSB-113 (2021) (affirms finding that firm did not qualify as WOSB at time it submitted its offer because woman owner did not exercise requisite control, which was shared with a man) In the Matter of The Edge Connection, SBA No. WBC-103 (2021) (remands case to agency because it did not provide administrative review of suspension of award of cooperative agreement as requested by the WBC and as required by the applicable regulations) In the Matter of C & E Industrial Service, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-112 (2019) (affirms finding that women shareholder/owners lacked the necessary managerial experience and expertise to control the concern because their husbands, who also had interests and positions in the firm, had significantly more relevant experience in the areas required to run the company) In the Matter of CE Green, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-111 (2018) (WOSB that did not participate in procurement at issue lacks standing to protest) In the Matter of Island Creek, Assocs., LLC, SBA No. WOSB-110 (2018) (since Contracting Officer did not request recertification of WOSB status for order, protest not filed within five days of notification of apparently successful offeror on underlying multiple award contract was untimely) In the Matter of Yard Masters, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-109 (2017) (upholds SBA's determination that firm does not qualify as WOSB because woman's husband holds highest officer position and manages day-to-day operations) In the Matter of Crystal Clear Technologies, Inc., SBA No. WOSB-108 (2016) (SBA correctly found that challenged firm met WOSB eligibility requirements despite fact that certain SAM representations and certifications were inaccurately filled in) In the Matter of Crescent Methods, LLC, SBA No. WOSB-106 (2015) (at SBA's request, remands case for further consideration of protester's allegations) , SBA No. EDWOSB-104 (2014) (agency had rational basis for concluding firm qualified as Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business because its President exercised the requisite control, had the required managerial experience, and did not run afoul of the limitation on outside employment)
|
|||||||||||||||||
This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me.