Stan Hinton

Home
Contact Me
2018 Blog
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2017 Procurement Review
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Statutes
Regulations
Directives
Courts
GAO
Boards
SBA
Agency Sites
More Agencies
Periodicals
Research
 

Recent SBA OHA Decisions (2013-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 (2007-2012)

  

Size         NAICS         VET        8(a) BDP          SDBA        WBC, WOSB & EDWOSB

 

Size Decisions

 

Most Recently Published Size Decisions

 

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 GovSmart, Inc., SSBA 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 Melton Sales & Service, Inc.span class="auto-style2">,, 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 Nordstrom Contracting & Consulting Corp.pan class="auto-style2">, 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 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 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)

SiSize Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5883 (2018)span> (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)

SiSize 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 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 extensive 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 Conrad Shipyard, LLCpan class="auto-style2">, 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)

SiSize 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 Emergent, Inc.pan class="auto-style2">, 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 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 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 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 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 Team Waste Gulf Coast, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5864 (2017) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation because Operating Agreement grants one firm negative control through the 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 firm 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 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 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 derived more than 70% of its income from large business for prior period of several years and extending even after the date of size determination)

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 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)span> (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 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 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 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 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 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)

SiSize Appeal of Lost Creek Holdings, LLC d/b/a All-STAR Health Solutions (upholds Area Office's size determination because appeal based almost entirely on allegations and evidence that could have been, but were not, presented to Area Office)

Size Appeal of the Frontline Grouppan class="auto-style2">, 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 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)

SiSize 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 Bridgeway Professionals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5827 (2017)span> (dismisses appeal of finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule as moot because underlying solicitation cancelled)

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) (p(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. . . .")span>

SiSize Appeal of NuGate Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5821 (2017)span> (Area Office correctly dismissed protest that failed to include any evidence as insufficiently specific)

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 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)

SiSize 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 INV Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5818 (2017)span> (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 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 Coulson Aviation USA, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5815 (2017) (Area Office correctly determined from firms' 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))

SiSize 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 Quadrant Training Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5811 (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 ProSol Assocs., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5813 (2017)span> (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 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 of task order under multiple award schedule contract was untimely because solicitation did not require recertification of size status)

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 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 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)

SiSize 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 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)

 

Jurisdiction; Ripeness; Standing; Timeliness; Mootness

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)span> (firm lacked standing to appeal adverse size determination relating to its wholly-owned subsidiary)

Sizize Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, pan class="auto-style2">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)

SiSize Appeal of QuaLED Lighting,pan class="auto-style2"> 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)

SiSize Appeal of Bridgeway Professionals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5827 (2017)span> (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)

SiSize 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)span> (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)

SiSize Appeal of Maron Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5759 (2016)span> (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)

Size Appeal of In & Out Valet Co., SBA No. SIZ-5696 (2015) ( (no SBA or OHA jurisdiction over protest that firm in VA procurement set aside for SDVOSBs was not controlled by SDV and, therefore, did not meet SDVO eligibility criteria)

Size Appeal of American Patriot Construction Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5671 (2015) (dismisses appeal of protest that was untimely filed with Contracting Officer)

Size Appeal of Solis Constructors, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5624 (2014) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of protest as untimely; FedBizOpps notice of award was sufficient to start the clock running for filing protest)

Size Appeal of Research and Development Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5626 (2014) (Area Office properly dismissed untimely protest of size for purposes of task order solicitation under long-term contract when Contracting Officer had not requested recertification), affirmed on reconsideration

Size Appeal of Kisan-Pike, A Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5623 (2014) (dismisses appeal because District Office's decision that joint venture agreement did not meet requirements of regulations was not a size determination and, therefore, could not be appealed to OHA)

Size Appeal of Empower RF Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5615 (2014) (dismisses untimely appeal filed 20 days after deadline)

Size Appeal of AIS Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5614 (2014) (dismisses, as untimely, a size protest concerning a task order solicitation issued under a long term contract because the contracting officer did not request recertification and did not join in the protest)

Size Appeal of Southwind Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5610 (2014) (Area Office properly dismissed protest after protested firm withdrew its offer and agency announced it would award to next firm in line), affirmed on reconsideration

Size Appeal of Quality Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5611 (2014) (affirms dismissal of size protest as untimely because it was not filed within five days of the date the protester received a "snapshot" report from a business development specialist at the agency showing the awardees for numerous listed task orders, including the one in question)

Size Appeal of U.S. Information Technologies, Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5585 (2014) (13 C.F.R. § 121.404(g)(5) does not create a right to file a size protest on an individual task order issued during contract performance of an overarching ID/IQ contract)

Size Appeal of Strata-G Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5563 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined that firm could not protest size of firm with long-term contract at the time of contract modification)

Size Appeal of Systems Technologies Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5562 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined firm could not protest size of firm awarded BPA under existing GSA schedule contract)

Size Appeal of Irvine Sensors Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5545 (2014) (appeal filed more than 15 days after Area Office size determination is untimely; no right to appeal Area Office's refusal to reopen size determination)

Size Appeal of West Texas Power Co., SBA No. SIZ-5539 (2014) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal filed more than 15 days after receipt of size determination)

Size Appeal of ReliaSource, SBA No. SIZ-5536 (2014) (dismisses size protest related to task order issued in response to RFQ that did not require recertification under long term contract)

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 EnviroServices & Training Center, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5517 (2013) (affirms dismissal of size protest as untimely because emails sent within the required five-day period were not sufficiently specific to notify the Contracting Officer that a protest was intended)

Size Appeal of NiSUS Technologies Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5513 (2013) (dismisses size appeal as untimely, even though it was timely served on all interested parties except the OHA)

Size Appeal of Pacific Power, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5520 (2013) (reverses Area Office's dismissal of protest because (i) protester presented sufficient evidence that it had made a timely telephonic protest and (ii) protester had standing pursuant to regulation applicable to procurements that are not set aside for small businesses (13 C.F.R. 121.1001(a)(7))) 

Size Appeal of Continental Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5508 (2013) (dismisses appeal filed more than fifteen days after firm received email notice of size determination) 

Size Appeal of IAP World Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5480 (2013) (Area Office erred in dismissing (for lack of jurisdiction) protest alleging that award was based in part on erroneous assumption that joint venture partner of successful offeror was a small business)

Size Appeal of HAL-PE Associates Engineering Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5478 (2013) (affirms Area Office determination that size protest was untimely because issuance of corrected notice of apparently successful offerors did not toll time period for protesting where original notice contained the information on the basis of which the protest was filed)

Size Appeal of Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5473 (2013) (dismisses appeal from negative size determination related to task order award under FSS contract as moot because agency already had canceled the petitioner's task order and awarded it to another firm)

Size Appeal of The Trevino Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5472 (2013) (dismisses untimely appeal filed with OHA more than 15 days after original SBA size decision)

Size Appeal of EFT Architects Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5460 (2013) (affirms dismissal of size protest as untimely; filing of GAO protest does not toll time for filing size protest)

Size Appeal of Autonomic Resources, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5453 (2013) (dismisses untimely appeal file more than 15 days after receipt of size determination)

Size Appeal of Absolute Staffers LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5441 (2013) (affirms dismissal of untimely protest filed more than five days after agency notified protester of identity of winning offeror)

Size Appeal of AutoFlex AFC, Inc., SBA No. SOZ-5431 (2013) (Area Office erred in dismissing protest as untimely; protester did not receive notice of award until after close of business; therefore, it was deemed to have been notified the following business day)

 

Lack of Specificity in Protest or Appeal

 

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)

Size Appeal of Wescott Electric Co., SBA No. SIZ-5691 (2015) (affirms Area Office's decision that protested firm was small business because protester failed to produce specific evidence to the contrary, even though it was publicly available at the time)

Size Appeal of Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5595 (2014) (appeal denied because protester provides no evidence or explanation for allegations that affiliation exists based on common management, identity of interest, or the newly organized concern rule)

Size Appeal of Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5591 (2014) (affirms dismissal of size protest as speculative and insufficiently specific)

Size Appeal of Star Poly Bag, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5584 (2014) (denies appeal by firm speculating that challenged firm submitted false information to Area Office to obtain favorable size determination)

Size Appeal of Jenn-Kans Disposal Service, SBA No. SIZ-5549 (2014) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific because it made only broad suggestion that two firms might be affiliated)

Size Appeal of RELM Communications, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5524 (2013) (protest alleging only that procurement was subject to nonmanufacturer rule and providing no explanation how protested firm allegedly ran afoul of that rule was not sufficiently specific and was properly dismissed)

Size Appeal of Ametek SCP, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5518 (2013) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific)

Size Appeal of EASTCO Building Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5347 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that firm was not small business because firm did not timely present Area Office evidence that management fees were inter-affiliate transfers, which should have been excluded in calculating "receipts") 

 

Failure to Provide Documentation to Area Office; Adverse Inference

 

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 Appeal of Axxon International, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5602 (2014) (Area Office correctly applied adverse inference to protested firm's failure to provide required information by original or extended deadlines)

Size Appeal of Elite Construction Management Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5565 (2014) (Area Office correctly applied adverse inference rule when firm failed to provide requested ownership records required to establish whether there was affiliation through identity of interest among various firms)

Size Appeal of Rich Chicks, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5556 (2014) (SBA properly applied adverse inference rule to firm that refused to provide requested documents concerning firm identified in proposal as place of manufacture in order for SBA to determine compliance with nonmanufacturer rule)

Size Appeal of DefTec Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5540 (2014) (Area Office was unjustified in using adverse inference against firm when it reasonably believed that the issue in question had been resolved without the need to supply further information)

Size Appeal of Step Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5483 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through identity of interest because protested firm refused to provide requested information to permit the Area Office of investigate the allegations adequately) 

 

Ostensible Subcontractor 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)

Size Appeal of GiaCare and MedTrust JV, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5690 (2015) (affirms Area Office's finding that protester's allegations (regarding (i) use of proposed subcontractor's former employee as Senior Project Manager, (ii) inclusion of  proposed subcontractor's past performance references in current proposal, and (iii) alleged lack of evidence of sufficient lines of credit) demonstrated affiliation under ostensible subcontractor rule)

Size Appeal of Hanks-Brandan, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5692 (2015) (awardee's teaming arrangement with incumbent under which incumbent would become subcontractor (and awardee would hire one of incumbent's employees as awardee's Program Manager) under new contract did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule because, inter alia, awardee would be responsible for performing primary requirements of new contract as prime contractor)

Size Appeal of GaN Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5658 (2015) (remands case to Area Office to determine whether final revised proposal (to which it did not have access in original size determination) shows firm complies with ostensible subcontractor rule)

Size Appeal of BCS, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5654 (2015) (Area Office correctly analyzed primary and vital contract requirements in deciding protested firm was not unduly reliant on subcontractors in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule)

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 Brown & Pipkins LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5621 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined that prime was affiliated with sub through ostensible subcontractor rule because sub's procedures, people, quality control program, and equipment will be used to conduct primary and vital contract responsibilities)

Size Appeal of Lynxnet, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5609 (2014) (affirms Area Office's (i) identification of the primary and vital requirements of contract and (ii) conclusion that contractor was not unduly reliant on subcontractor under ostensible subcontractor rule)

Size Appeal of WG Pitts Co., SBA No. SIZ-5575 (2014) (sustains Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because, as described in its final proposal in response to solicitation, protested firm, as prime contractor, would not be performing primary and vital contract requirements)

Size Appeal of Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5546 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined that awardee would perform primary and vital requirements of contract and did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule)

Size Appeal of Professional Security Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5548 (2014) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through ostensible subcontractor rule because prime proposed to employ the exact percentage of its subcontractor's (the incumbent's) staff as the prime's percentage of work on the contract and the incumbent's managerial staff, and because the prime had little experience with contracts of this magnitude)

Size Appeal of NEIE Medical Waste Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5547 (2014) (reverses Area Office finding of affiliation through ostensible subcontractor rule because prime contractor is experienced and will manage contract and perform the majority of its primary requirements)

Size Appeal of Red River Computer Co., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5512 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that protested concern was affiliated with large business subcontractor under ostensible subcontractor rule because subcontractor would be performing all primary and vital contract requirements)

Size Appeal of Iron Sword Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5503 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation under ostensible subcontractor rule because prime construction contractor would not be the manager of the construction project) 

Size Appeal of  Combat Readiness Health Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5498 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that prime contractor was not unduly reliant on subcontractor and therefore was not affiliated under ostensible subcontractor rule)

Size Appeal of Maywood Closure Co., LLC & TPMC-EnergySolutions Environmental Services 2009, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5499 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that challenged firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule because it would perform primary and vital requirements as the prime contractor, would manage the project, and would provide 10 of the 16 key employees)

Size Appeal  of Bell Pottinger Communications USA, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5495 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that firms were affiliated under ostensible subcontractor rule because (i) subcontractor would perform primary and vital contract requirements and 90% of contract work and (ii) seven of ten key contract employees were subcontractor's)

Size Appeal of Mission Critical Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5494 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that protested firm was a small business because (i) Area Office properly relied on tax returns rather than possibly conflicting information cited by protester, and (ii) using the large business incumbent as a subcontractor was not a violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule where the protested firm would perform a majority of the contract work and would be responsible for managing the entire project)

Size Appeal of Logistics & Technology Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5482 (2013) (reverses Area Office finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because Area Office failed to consider which firm was managing, and performing the primary and vital requirements of, the contract at issue)

Size Appeal of Shoreline Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5466 (2013) (sustains appeal because challenged firm is affiliated with another firm under ostensible subcontractor rule because proposed subcontractor would be performing primary and vital contract requirements)

Size Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5436 (2013) (mentor-protégé agreement does not insulate firm from scrutiny under ostensible subcontractor rule where protégé is the prime contractor; no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule even though subcontractor was incumbent, prime planned to hire two of incumbent's employees as key personnel)

Size Appeal of Shoreline Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5432 (2013) (affirms Area Office finding that two firms not affiliated through ostensible subcontractor rule because no evidence the firm will be subcontractor on challenged procurement )

 

Miscellaneous Affiliation Issues; JV; Mentor-Protégé

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. SIZ-5760 (2016) (remands case to Area Office to determine whether (i) challenged firm is manufacturer of contract items or qualifies under nonmanufacturer rule, (ii) challenged firm is affiliated with another firm as alleged by the protesters; and (iii) there is an identity of interest among the largest stockholders such that their interests should be aggregated)

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 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 Western River Restoration Partners, SBA No. SIZ-5695 (2015) (Area Office properly used nonprofit affiliate's tax return to calculate its total receipts, rather than using external records to reduce those receipts as suggested by the appellant)

Size Appeal of Connected Logistics, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5617 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined challenged firm acted as a broker rather than conference management service provider, and, therefore, under 13 C.F.R. 121.104(a), was not entitled to exclude from its receipts revenue that challenged firm characterized as reimbursements)

Size Appeal of TLS Contracting, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5527 (2014) (SBA properly added cost of goods sold to a corporation's total income to determine receipts for purposes of determining size)

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)

 

Date When Size is Determined

 

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)

Size Appeal of Orion Construction Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5694 (2015) (Area Office correctly relied on size standard included in original solicitation because Contracting Officer did not explicitly amend solicitation to reflect revised size standard that was published during bidding process)

Size Appeal of Complete Packaging and Shipping Supplies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5570 (2014) (solicitation to establish BPAs under FSS contracts did not require quoters to recertify their status as small businesses as part of their initial quotes)

Size Appeal of TISTA Science and Technology Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5529 (2014) (for task order solicitation under FSS contract, Area Office correctly determined firm's size as of date of its most recent certification under main FSS contract)

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 Ramcor Services Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5510 (2013) (Area Office correctly determined firm's size status as of date of its initial priced offer, as opposed to date of subsequent proposal revision)

 

Errors by Area Office

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 Government Contracting Resources, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5687 (2015) (remands to Area Office to consider argument that firm is controlled by six-person Executive Committee that does not include challenged individual)

Size Appeal of Erickson Helicopters, SBA No. 5672 (Aug. 26, 2015) (remands case to Area Office for further investigation of issues of aggregation of ownership interests and alleged control among affiliates)

Size Appeal of U.S. Department of State and Precise Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5627 (2014) (even though solicitation did not incorporate NAICS code or size standard, solicitation's synopsis and responses to questions and answers both clearly did, and, therefore, it was improper for Area Office to substitute another size standard in deciding a size appeal, absent a timely challenge to the NAICS code selected by the Contracting Officer)

Size Appeals of Strongwatch Corp. and Tactical Micro, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5625 (2014) (grants SBA's request to remand appeal to Area Office because it had not considered one issue raised by the protesters)

Size Appeal of MCH Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5605 (2014) (remands case for Area Office to consider whether there was identity of interest between parents and daughter and, if so, whether there was a clear fracture)

Size Appeal of Altendorf Transport, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5487 (2013) (vacates Area Office determination that applicant for an economic injury disaster loan was not small business because Area Office did not adequately investigate firm's contention as to appropriate NAICS code for its primary industry)

 

Miscellaneous

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. SIZ-5760 (2016) (remands case to Area Office to determine whether (i) challenged firm is manufacturer of contract items or qualifies under nonmanufacturer rule, (ii) challenged firm is affiliated with another firm as alleged by the protesters; and (iii) there is an identity of interest among the largest stockholders such that their interests should be aggregated)

Size Appeal of Sea Box, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5699 (2015) (although size appeal is denied on grounds advanced by protester, case is remanded to Area Office to determine compliance with the fourth element of the nonmanufacturer rule basis of subcontractor awardee included in its bid rather than new subcontractor it proposed after protest was filed)

Size Appeal of B GSE Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5685 (2015) (remands case for Area Office to consider whether firm met requirements for exception to nonmanufacturer rule for simplified acquisitions)

Size Appeal of B GSE Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5679 (2015) (Area Office correctly determined that solicitation for frequency converters required manufactured product, not kit, and challenged firm did not meet requirements of nonmanufacturer rule because it would supply item manufactured by large business subcontractor)

Size Appeal of RX Joint Venture, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5683 (2015) (Area Office correctly dismissed size protest of task order award under long term contract because solicitation did not require recertification of size)

Size Appeal of Jamaica Bearings Co., SBA No. SIZ-5677 (Sep. 3, 2015) (affirms Area Office's finding that, in procurement conducted under simplified acquisition procedures, business authorized to distribute products of large business manufacturer met requirements of nonmanufacturer rule)

Size Appeal of NMC/Wollard, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5668 (2015) (affirms Area Office finding after prior remand that firm is performing sufficient modifications to John Deere vehicles to be considered manufacturer of final product)

Size Appeal of All Around Access, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5656 (2015) (affirms Area Office finding that procurement of utility vehicles conducted in accordance with NAICS 336112 (Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing) in conjunction with 2310 (Passenger Motor Vehicles) is subject to class waiver of nonmanufacturer rule)

Size Appeal of Camp Noble, Inc., dba 3-D Marketing, SBA No. SIZ-5644 (2015) (Area Office correctly found that firm was not small because it (i) stated in its proposal that another firm was the "actual manufacturer" of the contract items, (ii) admitted it had no employees, and (iii) failed to provide information requested by Area Office)

Size Appeal of Novex Enterprises, SBA No. SIZ-5637 (2015) (challenge to NAICS code assigned to procurement made during course of size determination a year after solicitation issued is too late; Area Office correctly determined firm would not manufacture items and, thus, was not eligible for award under small business set-aside procurement)

Size Appeal of NMC/Wollard, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5632 (2015) (remands case to Area Office to augment incomplete analysis concerning whether challenged firm would manufacture the end item)

Size Appeal of Sea Box, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5613 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined protested firm was manufacturer of contract items because it would perform more than minimal operations on the product)

Size Appeal of Project Enhancement Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5604 (Oct. 6, 2014) (agency properly concluded that both RFQ and underlying BPA were unclear as to applicable size standard, and agency's subsequent clarification and choice of size standard were unobjectionable)

Size Appeal of Altendorf Transport, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5596 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined which trucking/freight NAICS code the challenged firm's business should be counted under) 

Size Appeal of Pacific Power, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5572 (2014) (Area Office properly used NAICS code originally assigned to solicitation to determine firm's size because the Contracting Officer had not modified that code to reflect a change in the NAICS code designation implemented by SBA after the date the solicitation was issued)

Size Appeal of Stronghold Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5543 (2014) (Area Office correctly determined protester was not primarily engaged in the generation, transmission or distribution for electric power, and, therefore, was not small under the NAICS code applicable to the procurement as of the date its size was determined)

Size Appeal of Bull Moose Energy Ventures, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5542 (2014) (affirms finding that firm, together with its affiliates, was not small because it was not primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale, which was a requirement of the size standard applicable to the procurement)

Size Appeal of Mali, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5506 (2013) (affirms Area Office's authority to issue size determination because solicitation was for a requirements contract, not a BPA, as appellant contended)

Size Appeal of Jackson and Tull, SBA No. SIZ-5492 (2013) (protester's contention that awardee and subject of size determination are different firms is without merit--record is clear that two names refer to the same underlying firm)

Size Appeal of Dawson Technical, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5476 (2013) (denies size appeal because size standard included in original solicitation controlled since solicitation was never formally amended to revise it (even though the agency intended to do so and repeatedly tried to do so)

Size Appeal of Metters Industries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5456 (2013) (affirms Area Office's determination; Contracting Officer had authority to protest firms' size because BPA task order solicitation required recertification)

NAICS Decisions

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 National Museum, Contracting Officer reasonably selected NAICS code 238910 (Site Preparation Contractors))

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) over protester's  proposal of NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) in contract to provide "specialty trade construction services with minimal design requirements for new minor construction, facility repair, rehabilitation, and alterations for a broad range of renovation and construction work")

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)

NAICS Appeal of Global Precision Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5681 (2015) (Contracting Officer correctly determined that, pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 121.402(b)(2), solicitation for provision of maintenance consumables should be classified under the appropriate manufacturing or supply NAICS code, not under a Wholesale Trade or Retail Trade NAICS code)

NAICS Appeal of T3 TigerTech, SBA No. NAICS-5674 (2015) (no jurisdiction over protest of particular SIN number rather than NAICS designation)

NAICS Appeal of National Electric Coil, SBA No. NAICS-5666 (2015) (Contracting Officer properly classified solicitation for replacement of stator core and stator winding in an air-cooled, vertical hydro-electric generator under NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) rather than  333611 (Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Unit Manufacturing), as requested by the protester)

NAICS Appeal of RCF Information Systems, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5653 (2015) (upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS code 517110 (Wired Telecommunications Carriers) over 541513 (Computer Facilities Management Services) in solicitation for offers to provide support services to operate, sustain, and assure the availability of the Air Force Information Network)

NAICS Appeal of Heritage Health Solutions, Inc., SBA No. NAICS 5650 (2015) (overturns NAICS code of 621399 (Office for All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners), assigned by Contracting Officer, in favor of NAICS code 446110 (Pharmacies and Drugstores), in solicitation for the provision of pharmacy benefits management services)

NAICS Appeal of Pinnacle Solutions, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5651 (2015) (upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS code 336413 (Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing), with a corresponding size standard of 1,000 employees, over appellant's contention that the appropriate code is 611512 (Flight Training), with a size standard of $27.5 million average annual receipts on contract to manage, operate, maintain, and modify aircraft simulator devices which are used to train Air Force personnel to properly operate KC-10 aircraft)

NAICS Appeal of Downrange Operations and Training LLC, et al., SBA No. NAICS-5647 (2015) (overturns NAICS code designation of 541330 (Engineering Services) in favor of 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training) in solicitation for offers to provide training support services, equipment, material, instruction, and products to improve the capability of U.S. and partner nation agencies' capability to detect, deter, disrupt, and degrade national security threats posed by illegal drugs, trafficking, piracy, transnational organized crime, threat finance networks, and any potential nexus among these activities)

NAICS Appeal of Allserv, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5629 (2014) (successful protest; solicitation for maintenance of cemetery grounds and structures belongs under NAICS 561730 (Landscaping Services) rather than Contracting Officer's choice of 812220 (Cemeteries and Crematories))

NAICS Appeal of Environment International, Ltd., SBA No. NAICS-5628 (2014) (upholds Contracting Officer's assignment of NAICS 562910 (Environmental Remediation Services) to solicitation for natural resource damage assessment support services, rather than 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services) suggested by protester)

NAICS Appeal of B&B Medical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5597 (2014) (upholds Contracting Officer's determination that contract to provide Home Oxygen Services and Ventilation to veteran beneficiaries belongs under NAICS 621610 (Home Health Care Services) rather than 532291 (Home Health Equipment Rental)

NAICS Appeal of eScience & Technology Solutions, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5586 (2014) (in solicitation for courseware development and instruction, reverses Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 541549 (Other Computer Related Services) in favor of 611430 (Professional and Management Development Training) 

NAICS Appeals of RLB Contracting, Inc., et al., SBA No. NAICS-5577 (2014) (upholds Contracting Officer's determination that project to create marsh and restore shoreline was primarily construction work under the main NAICS code of 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil engineering Construction), rather than fitting within the exception under that category for dredging and surface cleanup), subsequently overturned by Court of Federal Claims

NAICS Appeal of QED Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5573 (2014) (upholds Contracting Officer's determination that project fit within general category 541330 (Engineering Services), rather than the exception under that category for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons) 

NAICS Appeal of ACE Consulting Services, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5574 (2014) (reverses Contracting Officer's designation of  541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) in favor of  611430 (Professional and Management Development Training) because solicitation involved training services rather than consulting services)

NAICS Appeal of AeroSage, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5554 (2014) (dismisses, as moot, appeal filed after contract award)

NAICS Appeal of Palladian Partners, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5553 (2014) (dismisses appeal because issue already had been decided in previous NAICS code appeal)

NAICS Appeal of Rotech Healthcare, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5550 (2014) (dismisses appeal re small business set-aside by firm that would not be small under either NAICS code assigned to the procurement or code it argues is correct)

NAICS Appeal of Information Ventures, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5544 (2014) (successful appeal; appropriate code for solicitation is 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, with a size standard of $14 million average annual receipts, as opposed to 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) because the solicitation was not one for research and development)

NAICS Appeal of Latvian Connection, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5534 (2014) (dismisses appeal because OHA lacks jurisdiction over claim that procurement should have been set aside for small businesses)

NAICS Appeal of The U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA No. NAICS-5526 (2014) (successful protest; correct NAICS Code for RFPs for broad range of support equipment is 334419,Other Electronic Component Manufacturing, with a corresponding size standard of 500 employees, rather than 541330, Engineering Services)

NAICS Appeal of Latvian Connection, LLC, SBA No. NAICS 5525 (Jan. 8, 2014) (dismisses protest based on sources sought synopsis as premature because solicitation has yet to be issued)

NAICS Appeal of Evanhoe & Associates, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5505 (2013) (affirms CO's decision that proper NAICS code for solicitation is  541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology), Aircraft exception, rather than NAICS code 541511, Custom Computer Programming Services)

NAICS Appeal of MicroTechnologies, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5489 (2013) (upholds Contracting Officer's determination that NAICS Code 541519 (Other Computer Related Services), rather than 517110 (Wired Telecommunications Carriers) was the appropriate designation for a procurement of video teleconferencing services)

NAICS Appeal of RhinoCorps, Ltd., SBA No. NAICS-5481 (2013) (dismisses untimely NAICS appeal filed more than 10 calendar days after RFP issued) 

NAICS Appeal of Global Dynamics, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5470 (2013) (affirms NAICS code assigned to RFQ  because it was only NAICS code identified on underlying FSS schedule)

NAICS Appeal of SAC Cleaners, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5468 (2013) (appropriate NAICS code for procurement of laundry services is 812320, Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) rather than 812331, Linen Supply)

NAICS Appeal of Pacific Shipyards International, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5464 (2013) (affirms assignment of NAICS code 488310 (Port and Harbor Operations) to procurement because that code accurately describes the majority of the work, even though a small portion of work will involve shipyard activities)

NAICS Appeal of The McConnell Group, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5463 (2013) (affirms dismissal of untimely NAICS appeal filed more than 10 days after solicitation issued)

NAICS Appeal of Validata Chemical Services, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5449 (2013) (dismisses NAICS code appeal as untimely; agency's failure to formally include NAICS Code in solicitation does not excuse failure to file appeal where code was included in presolicitation notice and in questions and answers issued during solicitation process)

NAICS Appeal of Savantage Solutions, SBA No. NAICS-5446 (2013) (upholds Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 541512, Computer Systems Design Services, with a corresponding $25.5 million annual receipts size standard, as opposed to NAICS Code 541330 (Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons), with a $35.5 million size standard)

NAICS Appeal of Katmai Simulations & Training, SBA No. NAICS-5445 (2013) (upholds Contracting Officer's determination that solicitation for roleplayer support services was covered by NAICS code 561320, Temporary Help Services, with an associated size standard of $25.5 million average annual receipts, as opposed to NAICS code 611710, Educational Support Services)

NAICS Appeal of  Cape Fox Government Services, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5444 (2013) (denies appeal of NAICS code designation of  541330, Engineering Services, in procurement to provide installation and logistics management services for Command Control Communications Computers Information Technology systems)

NAICS Appeal of Trans Aero, Ltd., SBA No. NAICS-5443 (2013) (dismisses appeal that does not involve a specific solicitation and that was not timely filed at OHA)

VET Decisions

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))

Matter of JBL System Solutions, SBA No. VET-252 (2015)a> (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific where only allegation was that protester had been unable to locate in any online records evidence that the protested firm met all the requirements for a SDVOSB)

Matter of VetPride Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-250 (2015) (affirms finding that firm is qualified SDVOSB because service-disabled veteran is highest ranking officer)

Matter of Brandt Group, Inc., SBA No. VET-249 (2015) (affirms SBA's dismissal of protest as untimely; also notes several protest grounds are actually bid protests over which SBA has no jurisdiction)

Matter of Precise Systems, Inc., SBA No. VET-243 (2014) (affirms SBA determination that concern had two different classes of stock, one class of which was not owned by a service-disabled veteran)

Matter of Battalion, LLC, SBA No. VET-242 (2013) (affirms finding that firm is not eligible SDVOSB because its SDV and majority owner is a full time employee of another firm controlled by the protested firm's minority owner) 

Matter of MJL Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. VET-240 (2013) (affirms dismissal of protest of SDVOSB status that did not contain any specific evidence or facts relating to alleged ineligibility)

Matter of KRR Partners Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-239 (2013) (affirms determination that JV was not qualified SDVOSB because joint venture agreement did not specify the parties' contract responsibilities)

Matter of Alpha Terra Engineering, Inc., SBA No. VET-238 (2013) (SBA erred in finding minority directors could block a quorum because SDV was majority owner who could remove other directors for any reason)

Matter of Golden Key Group, LLC, SBA No. VET-236 (2013) (upholds determination that firm did not qualify as SDVOSB because only one of three individuals who controlled it was a service-disabled veteran) [NOTE: Golden Key's counsel has advised me that the company has since corrected this administrative issue and is now a fully-qualified SDVOSB]

Matter of Veterans Contractors Group JV, LLC, SBA No. VET-233 (2013) (affirms SBA's dismissal, as insufficiently specific, of protest alleging only that protested firm did not appear to meet requirements for forming SDVOSB JV and appeared to have exceeded the maximum allowable number of contracts in a two-year period, without any supporting evidence or facts)

Matter of 347 Construction Group, SBA No. VET-232 (2013) (under 13 C.F.R. 125.24(b), SBA lacks jurisdiction over firm's protest of its own elimination from SDVOSB set-aside competition by Air Force Contracting Officer after he discovered firm was not listed in VetBiz database)

 

8(a) Business Development Program Decisions

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)

Matter of A.J. Nesti Materials, BDPE-551 (2015) (OHA lacks jurisdiction over appeal from denial of entry into 8(a) program based on conclusion that firm had not shown the potential to successfully meet the business development objectives of the program)

Matter of Arrow S. Co., BDPE-546 (2015) (petitioner should be admitted into 8(a) program because, in considering her application, SBA improperly rejected or discounted clear evidence of social disadvantage due to gender bias and discrimination which limited her entrance into and advancement within typical male-dominated industry)

Matter of The Desa Group, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-543 (2015) (even though two grounds for terminating a firm from the 8(a) program were erroneous, SBA had valid basis for concluding firm was unduly reliant on another business that already had graduated from the program; thus, termination upheld)

Matter of Cornerstone Construction Services, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-540 (2014) (agency correctly determined that amount of home loan taken as second mortgage on primary residence should be subtracted from equity value of that residence in computing applicant's net worth)

Matter of Laurus Construction Corp., SBA No. BDPT-531 (2014) (affirms termination from 8(a) program for failure to provide required Annual Review documents)

Matter of Express Plus Staffing LLC, SBA No. BDPE-533 (2014) (affirms denial of entry into 8(a) program because immigrant status is not a protected ethnicity and allegations of sexual bias were not sufficiently specific)

Matter of Ironwood Commercial Builders, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-532 (2014) (remands case to SBA to reconsider examples and evidence of gender-motivated bias leading to social disadvantage)

Matter of KBT Contracting Corp., SBA No. BDPE-526 (2014) (affirms SBA's denial of entrance into 8(a) program because, although analysis of social disadvantage as a result of gender bias was deficient, separate basis of control of business by nondisadvantaged individual was supported by record)

Matter of Pynergy, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-525 (2014) (no jurisdiction over appeal of firm denied entrance into 8(a) program for reasons other than a negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership or control)

Matter of Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. BDPS-523 (2104) (orders SBA to lift suspension of firm from 8(a) program because SBA has repeatedly failed to comply with OHA's order to present evidence in support of its suspension allegations)

Matter of Cabin John Consulting Corp., SBA No. BDPE-521 (2014) (SBA properly calculated applicant's adjusted net worth in denying him admission to 8(a) program)

Matter of United Global Technologies, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-518 (2014) (SBA had valid basis for denying applicant's entry into the 8(a) program for failure to demonstrate social disadvantage)

Matter of Bartkowski Life Safety Corp., SBA No. BDPE-516 (2014) (SBA's refusal to admit firm into 8(a) program was not well-reasoned given that the firm (i) had offered examples of gender-motivated bias in all three phases of its principal's life, and (ii) had provided evidence that the social disadvantage allegedly caused by that bias had hindered and frustrated her entrepreneurial opportunities)

Matter of Arima Capital, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-511 (2014) (affirms SBA decision terminating firm from 8(a) program for failure to submit required annual reporting documents)

Matter of Y & S Technologies, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-507 (2013) (affirms SBA decision denying entrance into 8(a) program because individual had not presented sufficient specific evidence of social disadvantage as a result of his appearance and practice as an Hasidic Jew)

Matter of MillenniumSoft, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-503 (2013)(upholds SBA decision to terminate firm from 8(a) program for failure to provide required annual report information)

Matter of Sunrise Staffing, SBA No. BDPE-499 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further investigation because, in rejecting application for admission to 8(a) program SBA failed to consider some evidence submitted by applicant, including video evidence, and misread other evidence)

Matter of NAMO, LLC, SBA No. BDP-458 (2012) (upholds decision denying firm admission into 8(a) program because applicant had a contractual relationship with another 8(a) firm in the same line of business, which was owned by the applicant's brother)

Matter of Brighter Days & Nites, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-498 (2013) (upholds termination from 8(a) program for failing to obtain prior written approval from SBA for changing business structure from limited liability company to corporation)

Matter of G. M. Hill Engineering, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-485 (2013) (directs SBA to admit firm into 8(a) program because it failed to comply fully with prior remand order directing it to reexamine all applicant's arguments for admission and issue a new determination)

Matter of G. M. Hill Engineering, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-496 (2013) (denies SBA's request to reconsider prior decision directing it to admit firm into 8(a) program)

Matter of Boblits Services, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-480 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because, in denying application for admission into 8(a) program, SBA made numerous errors failing to follow applicable regulations in examining the evidence)

Matter of National Sourcing Specialists, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-502 (2013) (no jurisdiction over joint venture that was not at 8(a) participant, even though one of the JV members was an 8(a) firm)

Matter of SPARCcom & Associates, SBA No. BDPT-501 (2013) (affirms termination from 8(a) program for failure to pursue competitive and commercial business in accordance with its business plan and failure to make reasonable efforts to develop and achieve competitive viability in violation of 13 C.F.R. § 124.303(a)(9))

Matter of ME Cubed Engineering, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-493 (2013) (upholds termination from 8(a) program because disadvantaged individual on whom program participation was based was employed by another firm and did not devote himself fulltime to 8(a) firm)

Matter of Oxley Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-492 (2013) (affirms denial of admission to 8(a) program because assertions of various events that allegedly were discriminatory did not include evidence of chronic and substantial social disadvantage brought about by gender bias)

Matter of Reality Technologies, Inc., SBA No. BDPT-488 (2013) (denies request to reconsider prior decision upholding termination of firm from 8(a) program) 

Matter of Allcon LLC, SBA No. BDPE-486 (2013) (affirms denial of admission to 8(a) program because of ongoing contractual relationships between two firms)

Matter of Harris Grant, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-478 (2013) (affirms denial of firm's admission to 8(a) program because of business relationships with non-disadvantaged individuals or entities that result in an inability to exercise independent business judgment without great economic risk)

Matter of Mill Mike Mfg. Corp., SBA No. BDPE-476 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because, in denying firm's application for 8(a) status based on chronic and substantial social disadvantage to which gender bias has contributed, agency failed to explain its reasons for rejecting applicant's claims and evidence and completely ignored other evidence)

Matter of Gearhart Construction Services, SBA No. BDPE-473 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because, in denying firm's application for admission to 8(a) program, agency  (i) applied improper "chronic and substantial bias" standard instead of "chronic and substantial social disadvantage" brought about by alleged bias; and (ii) required "conclusive proof" rather than simply "preponderance of evidence." 

Matter of Agile Tek Solutions, SBA No. BDPT-474 (2013) (upholds decision to terminate firm from 8(a) program for failure to timely submit annual review materials or to timely respond to allegations in notice of intent to terminate)

Matter of Black Horse Group, LLC, SBA No. BDPE-468 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because, in denying firm's application for 8(a) status, SBA (i) improperly employed "clear and convincing proof" standard instead of "preponderance of evidence" standard to firm's evidence; (ii) improperly applied improper "chronic and substantial gender bias" standard instead of "chronic and substantial social disadvantage to which gender has contributed" test; (iii) reached conclusions contrary to evidence; and (iv) ignored other evidence)

Matter of Innovet, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-466 (2013) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because SBA had ignored significant portions of evidence provided by applicant and had failed to explain its rationale for its decision denying entry into program)

Matter of Striker Electric, SBA No. BDPE-465 (2013) (remands case to SBA to address three alleged incidents of disability-related bias that it neglected to consider originally)

Matter of NOVA Training & Technology Solutions, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-464 (2013) (SBA had rational bases for terminating firm from 8(a) program based on unresolved ownership and control issues)

Matter of Career Personnel, Inc., SBA No. BDPE-462 (2013) (OHA lacks jurisdiction over appeal from decision that firm was ineligible for 8(a) program based in part on firm's failure to disclose existence of trust in its initial application)  

Matter of JA Harris Trucking, SBA No. BDPT-463 (2013) (upholds termination from program for failure to submit required documents)

 

SDBA Decisions

WBC, WOSB and EDWOSB Decisions

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)

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)

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)

Matter of Crescent Methods, LLC, SBA No. WOSB-106 (2015) (at SBA's request, remands case for further consideration of protester's allegations)

Matter of PotomacWave Consulting, Inc., 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

click analytics