|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
SBA OHA Decisions (2007-2015) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Size NAICS VET 8(a) BDP SDBA WBC, WOSB & EDWOSB
Jurisdiction; Ripeness; Standing; Timeliness; Mootness 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) Size Appeal of KAES Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5425 (2012) (firm eliminated from competition due to technically unacceptable proposal lacks standing to file size protest)Size Appeal of CS360, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5419 (2012) (dismisses appeal filed more than 15 days after receipt of size determination as untimely) Size Appeal of Silvergate Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5418 (2012) (dismisses appeal filed with OHA more than 15 days after receipt of size determination, even though copies were served on Area Office, SBA Office of General Counsel, and procuring agency within 15 day period) Size Appeal of Horizon, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5408 (2012) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal filed more than 15 days after appellant received Area Office's size determination) Size Appeal of HAL-PE Associates Engineering Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5391 (2012) (dismisses appeal of SDVOSB status on VA set-aside for lack of jurisdiction) Size Appeal of Goel Services, Inc., and Grunley/Goel JVD LLC, SBA No SIZ-5356 (2012) (dismisses SBA's petition for reconsideration of OHA's prior decision for lack of standing because SBA did not appear or participate in prior appeal) Size Appeal of Bosco Constructors, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5345 (Apr. 27, 2012) (dismisses protest as moot because agency is in process of making new award decision) Size Appeal of Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5333 (Mar. 22, 2012) (firm lacks standing to appeal statements about its own size in another firm's size determination) Size Appeal of Fuel Cell Energy, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5330 (Mar. 19, 2012) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as insufficiently specific; allegations raised for first time on appeal will not be considered) Size Appeal of BR Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5327 (Feb. 21, 2012) (appellant barred by issue preclusion from raising same issues decided in earlier appeal) Size Appeal of Tyler Construction Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5323 (Jan. 26, 2012) (affirms dismissal of untimely protest against size status for task order award where Contracting Officer had not requested recertification in connection with the award) Size Appeal of Trident3, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5315 (Jan. 24, 2012) (overturns Area Office's size determination because 8(a) firm's joint venture agreement was approved prior to award of 8(a) contract and Area Office lacks authority to review mentor-protégé agreements in context of 8(a) procurements) Size Appeal of Alutiiq Diversified Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5318 (Jan. 19, 2012) (affirms Area Office; where parties to approved mentor-protégé agreement also have approved JV agreement for a particular procurement, the Area Office's decision that it did not have the authority to examine whether the members of the joint venture had formed too many such ventures together over the years (because it had already been determined by SBA that the JV was approved for this particular procurement) Size Appeal of Excalibur Laundries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5317 (Jan. 12, 2012) (Area Office not required to consider specific allegation of affiliation first raised after deadline for filing size protest in negotiated procurement) Size Appeal of Garco Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5308 (2011) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of size protest as untimely because it was filed more than five business days after the Contracting Officer notified the firm of the identity of the prospective awardee) Size Appeal of MWE Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5283 (2011) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of protest, where initial protest submissions were insufficiently specific and later submissions were untimely filed more than five days after posting of award notice at FedBiZOpps) Size Appeal of Coyol International Group, SBA No. SIZ-5261 (2011) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of size protest because procurement was unrestricted) Size Appeal of Falcon, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5239 (2011) (original size appeal was untimely because it was filed more than five days after receipt of notice of award from the Contracting Officer, and filing protest at GAO did not extend period for filing size protest) Size Appeal of Outdoor Venture Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5232 (2011) (dismisses untimely appeal filed more than 15 days after receipt of size determination, even though firm had attempted to file by email in timely manner, but email was not received at OHA and firm received no indication that email transmission had been unsuccessful) Size Appeal of A-Top Security Co., SBA No. SIZ-5227 (2011) (dismisses appeal not received within 15 days of contractor's receipt of size determination, although it was postmarked on the 15th day) Size Appeal of NMA Architects Planners Leed Consultants, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5215 ( 2011) (despite general rule at 13 C.F.R. 121.404(a) that size is determined as of the date of self-certification with a priced offer, Area Office erred in dismissing protest as premature, which was filed upon notification of the identity of the offeror chosen for negotiation (before submission of a price) in a formal two-step procurement for A/E services under Brooks Act pursuant to FAR 36.6) Size Appeal of Quantum Professional Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5207 ( 2011) (vacates a size determination because it was based on untimely size protests concerning task order award under ID/IQ contract absent a request for size recertification by the ordering agency) Size Appeal of PTL Contracting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5170 (2010) (dismisses appeal to OHA because it was not filed within required 15 days of receipt of Area Office's determination) Size Appeal of Alutiiq Education & Training, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5182 (Jan. 10, 2011) (dismisses appeal based on an alleged violations of ostensible subcontractor rule because contract at issue already had been awarded) Size Appeal of Sunshine Kids Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5167 (2010) (Area Office properly dismissed protest as untimely; protester's contention that notice of award was not sufficient to give it notice of protest grounds because it did not identify separate members of JV is unavailing because regs only require notice to identify awardee) Size Appeal of Aero-Graphics, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5162 (2010) (dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction because contract has been awarded and allegation--violation of ostensible subcontractor rule--is contract-specific) Size Appeal of Service Disabled Veteran Contractors LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5158 (2010) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of size protest as untimely because it was not filed within five days of notice of award) Size Appeal of Glen/Mar Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5143 (2010) (firm whose offer had been eliminated from competition as technically unacceptable lacked standing to protest awardee's size) Size Appeal of Reams Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5137 (2010) (firm whose offer had been eliminated from competition for reasons unrelated to size lacked standing to protest awardee's size) Size Appeal of American Towing & Auto Dismantling, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5123 (2010) (dismisses appeal as untimely because original protest to Area Office was properly dismissed as untimely) Size Appeal of the Competitive Edge II, LLC d/b/a @Work Medical Services, SBA No. SIZ-5117 (2010) (dismisses "grossly" untimely appeal from size determination) Size Appeal of SETA Support Services Alliance, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5111 (2010) (PFR) (denies petition for reconsideration of decision re ostensible subcontractor issues because the contract at issue already has been awarded) Size Appeal of Perry Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5100 (2009) (dismisses appeal that raises evidence and arguments on appeal not included in original size protest) Size Appeals of Sabre88, LLC and Phacil, Inc, SBA No. SIZ-5113 (Feb. 2010) (size appeals that size determination "may" affect firm's eligibility for 8(a) program are dismissed as premature; request to Area Office to perform size determination on Sabre88) Size Appeal of Molter Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5107 (Jan. 5, 2010) (dismisses untimely appeal from issuance of size determination) Size Appeal of Jupiter Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5095 (2009) (upholds Area Office determination that firm was other than small; firm's protest that original size protest lacked specificity is untimely) Size Appeal of American Woolen Company International, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5094 (2009) (appeal dismissed as (i) untimely with regard to current procurement and (ii) lacking a full and specific statement with regard to the alleged errors in the Area Office's size determination) Size Appeal of JXM, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5091 (2009) (OHA lacks jurisdiction because there is no underlying, formal size determination from which to appeal) Size Appeal of Valerie Lewis Janitorial, SBA No. SIZ-5067 (2009) (dismisses size appeal as moot because protested firm was already ineligible for award after a finding that it was SDVO SBC for purposes of an SDVO SBC set-aside) Size Appeal of KVA Electric, SBA No. SIZ-5051 (2009) (dismisses untimely appeal) Size Appeal of Taylor Consultants Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5050 (2009) (firm found other than small has no standing to challenge size status of another competitor because there was still more than one small business offeror for the procurement--13 C.F.R. 121.1001(a)(1)(iv)) Size Appeal of Executive Technology Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5026 (2009) (dismisses appeal which is untimely with respect to current procurement) Size Appeal of Argo/LRS, JV, SBA No. SIZ-5027 (2009) (dismisses appeal which is untimely with respect to both current and future procurements) Size Appeal of W. H. Mosley Co., SBA No. Size-5020 (2009) (size protest filed before apparently successful offeror is identified is premature) Size Appeal of Sarang Herlihy JV, SBA No. SIZ-5018 (2008) (timely appeal cannot cure untimely protest) Size Appeal of Information Systems Integrators, SBA No. SIZ-4999 (2008) (untimely appeal received more than 15 days after receipt of size determination) Size Appeal of S4, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4959 (2008) (13 C.F.R. 121.1004(e)--SBA's protest filed prior to any notice of an apparent successful offeror is premature) Size Appeal of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, SBA No. SIZ-4956 (2008) (untimely appeal by contracting officer) Size Appeal of Global Solutions Network, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4937 (2008) (dismissing protest as untimely filed months too late) Size Appeal of UXB International, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4930 (2008) (appeal not filed with OHA is untimely, even if it is filed with other SBA offices) Size Appeal of PMTech, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4921 (2008) (appeal based upon ostensible subcontractor rule is dismissed because contract already has been awarded) Size Appeal of Environmental Protection Certification Co., SBA No. SIZ-4915 (2008) (untimely appeal of size determination) Size Appeal of Siwa'vatts, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4906 (2008) (standing to request a size determination) Size Appeal of White Hawk/Todd, a Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-4888 (2008) (standing to raise size protest; specificity required for protest statement) Size Appeal of Global Solutions Network, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4881 (2008) (dismissal of allegation of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because contract already has been awarded) Size Appeal of PM Services Co., SBA No. SIZ-4878 (2008) (untimely size appeal) Size Appeal of Precision Standard, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4873 (2007) (dismisses size appeal raising contract specific issue, i.e. nonmanufacturer rule, filed after contract awarded) Size Appeals of NSR Solutions, Inc., et al., SBA No. SIZ-4859 (2007) (post-award, non-reviewable, contract-specific allegations) Size Appeal of Evolver, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4854 (2007) (post-award, non-reviewable, contract-specific issues; "Evolver-II") Size Appeal of ACCESS Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4853 (2007) (timeliness of Petition for Reconsideration) Size Appeal of Labatt Food Service, SBA No. SIZ-4851 (2007) (timeliness of appeal petition) Size Appeal of Seminole Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4847 (2007) (timeliness of appeal; tax returns as evidence of receipts) Size Appeal of Evolver, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4844 (2007) (post-award, contract specific issues; "Evolver-I") Size Appeal of Ross Aviation, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4840 (2007) (size appeal after contract award; overruling Size Appeal of Spectrum Landscape Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4313 (1998) re mootness) Lack of Specificity in Protest or Appeal 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") Size Appeal of HBC Management Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5409 (2012) (disregards evidence of affiliation that was publicly available at time of original size protest but not offered until appeal) Size Appeal of SIMMEC Training Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-5404 (2012) (upholds Area Office finding that challenged firm was small; protester cannot complain Area Office should have conducted further investigation because protester did not provide evidence justifying such investigation to Area Office; challenged firm did not violate ostensible subcontractor; Area Office properly excluded receipts of firm not found to be affiliated with challenged firm as of date of self-certification) Size Appeal of Fuel Cell Energy, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5330 (2012) (Area Office correctly dismissed protest as insufficiently specific; allegations raised for first time on appeal will not be considered) Size Appeal of SB Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5298 (2011) (dismisses appeal as insufficient because it does not allege any errors in two of three bases for Area Office's original size determination) Size Appeal of Platinum Business Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5198 (2011) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of SoftConcept, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5197 (2011) (affirms dismissal of protest as insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of Jupiter Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5095 (2009) (dismisses appeal that challenges specificity of protest for first time on appeal) Size Appeal of Perry Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5100 (2009) (dismisses appeal that raises evidence and arguments on appeal not included in original size protest) Size Appeal of American Woolen Company International, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5094 (2009) (appeal dismissed as (i) untimely with regard to current procurement and (ii) lacking a full and specific statement with regard to the alleged errors in the Area Office's size determination) Size Appeal of Unitron, LP, SBA No. Siz-5084 (2009) (reverses Area Office determination that protest lacked specificity and requires Area Office to make size determination) Size Appeal of Archimeleon, PLLC, SBA No. SIZ-5076 (2009) (dismisses one-page appeal which does not contain sufficient information to convey specific grounds of appeal) Size Appeal of Maximum Demolition, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5073 (2009) (affirms dismissal of size protest as being insufficiently specific pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 121.1007(b)) Size Appeal of FlowSense Building Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5072 (2009) (overturns Area Office determination that protest was insufficiently specific) Size Appeal of Tire Centers LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5047 (2009) (affirms dismissal of appeal for lack of specificity) Size Appeal of Val-Coast, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5031 (2009) (protest that "validity of [challenged firm's] size standard in relation to their NAICS Code should be researched" lacks requisite specificity) Size Appeal of White Hawk/Todd, a Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-4888 (2008) (standing to raise size protest; specificity required for protest statement) Size Appeal of Millennium Health & Fitness, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4877 (2008) (lack of specificity in size protest) Size Appeal of ELR Consultants, SBA No. SIZ-4875 (2007) (vacates Area Office's dismissal of protest for alleged lack of specificity and orders full size determination) Size Appeal of p.r.n. Steno-Medical Transcription Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4861 (2007) (oral, non-specific protest) Size Appeal of Precision Standard, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4858 (2007) (reasonable notice of protest grounds; citation to outdated regulation) Failure to Provide Documentation to Area Office; Adverse Inference 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) Size Appeal of American Blanching Company, SBA No. SIZ-5430 (2012) (Area Office properly applied adverse inference rule to find firm other than small after it failed to submit requested Form 355) Size Appeal of Macro-Z Technology Co., SBA No. SIZ-5361 (2012) (affirms Area Office decision drawing adverse inferences based on repeated failures of protested firm to provide relevant information requested by Area Office) Size Appeal of Signal Ship Repair, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5335 (2012) (Area Office correctly applied the adverse inference rule after protested firm twice ignored Area Office's request to provide information on number of employees of affiliated firms; reasonable for Area Office to base finding of affiliation on protested firm's own representation that one firm owned majority interest in another) Size Appeal of DMI Educational Training LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5276 (2011) (affirms Area Office's findings of affiliation due to adverse inference (after firm failed to provide information requested by Area Office), even though Area Office was incorrect on application of newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of DMI Educational Training LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5275 (2011) (affirms Area Office's findings of affiliation under (i) common management existing as of the self-certification date and (ii) adverse inference test (for failing to provide information requested by Area Office), even though Area Office was incorrect on application of newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of MWE Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5283 (2011) (affirms Area Office's dismissal of protest, where initial protest submissions were insufficiently specific and later submissions were untimely filed more than five days after posting of award notice at FedBiZOpps) Size Appeal of SolarCity Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5257 (2011) (affiliation through identity of interest and ownership of minority blocks of stock large in comparison to other ownership interests; application of adverse inference rule after firm refused to provide requested information) Size Appeal of Ecotope Environmental Services, Ltd., SBA No. SIZ-5173 (2010) (affirms Area Office finding based upon adverse inference after protested firm failed to file SBA Form 355 as requested by Area Office) Size Appeal of Log In Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5130 (May 6, 2010) (dismisses appeal of firm that failed to submit required documentation to Area Office in response to size protest) Size Appeal of D&B Homecare, SBA No. SIZ-5096 (2009) (Area Office was correct to draw adverse inference from protested firm's failure to provide requested information) Size Appeal of Kadix Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5016 (2008) (Area Office correct in drawing adverse interest from protester's failure to submit LOI) Size Appeal of Firewatch Contracting of Florida, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4994 (2008) (failure to provide required documentation to Area Office; three party test for upholding Area Office's request for documentation; affiliation) Size Appeal of Management Support Technology Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4976 (2008) (adverse inference from firm's refusal to submit evidence properly requested by Area Office) Size Appeal of Sure-Way Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4972 (2008) (failure to provide information reasonably requested by Area Office; undue reliance on subcontractors; failure to specify which work will be provided by contractor and by subcontractors; ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Atlantis Defense Systems, SBA No. SIZ-4944 (2008) (adverse inference from failure to provide required information) Size Appeal of USA Jet Airlines, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4919 (2008)(adverse inference from failure to provide requested documents) Size Appeal of Canal Wood, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4852 (2007) (failure to provide requested information) Size Appeal of Continuant, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4839 (2007) (refusal to provide requested information) Size Appeal of Jacob Reliable Enterprises, SBA No. SIZ-4836 (2007) (inadequacy of evidence; attempt to submit new evidence on appeal) Size Appeal of T/J Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4832 (2007) (excuse for failure to submit requested information) 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) Size Appeal of Assessment and Consulting Solutions Training Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-5421 (2012) (affirms Area Office size determination; compliance with Limitations on Subcontracting clause is a matter of contract administration, not for consideration in size determination; challenged firm did not violate ostensible subcontractor rule because it was not subcontracting to the alleged ostensible subcontractor) Size Appeal of J. W. Mills Management, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5416 (2012) (reverses Area Office; firm that will provide primary and vital contract services as prime contractor does not violate ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Competitive Innovations, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5392 (PFR) (2012) (denies petition for reconsideration of OHA decision in SIZ-5369) Size Appeal of Competitive Innovations, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5369 (2012) (reverses Area Office; challenged firm is not small business for challenged procurement because it is affiliated with four subcontractors through ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Wichita Tribal Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5390 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule where subcontractor was the incumbent, protested firm planned to hire majority of its workforce from subcontractor, including proposed project manager, and protested firm was relatively new firm with modest resources and little relevant corporate experience) Size Appeal of Roundhouse PBN, LLC, SBA No.. SIZ-5383 (2012) (Area Office erred in finding firm owned by holding company itself owned by a federally-recognized Indian tribe certified as economically disadvantaged by the SBA was affiliated with other firms owned by same holding company through newly organized concern rule, identity of interest, ostensible subcontractor rule, or totality of circumstances) Size Appeal of IPKeys Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5353 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that there was no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of iGov Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5359 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that protested firm did not violate ostensible subcontractor rule even though it would be procuring majority of contract dollar value as hardware from subcontractor because solicitation as a whole called for more than production and was mainly for provision services) Size Appeal of SM Resources Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5338 (2012) (upholds Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule and nonmanufacturer rule where incumbent contractor is proposed subcontractor, protested firm plans to employ many of incumbent's employees, including those for all key positions, incumbent initiated contact with protested firm to join forces for current procurement, and protested firm does not have significant past experience in type of work required for solicitation) Size Appeal of HX5, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5331 (2012) (reverses Area Office finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because Area Office (i) relied upon an erroneous determination that Appellant's PM was an employee of its subcontractor, (ii) erroneously relied upon Appellant's repeated references to its pending (not yet approved) mentor/protégé agreement as indicia of undue reliance, and (iii) erroneously conducted its own evaluation Appellant's past performance submission, ignoring the RFP's criteria and ignoring the evaluators' contrary conclusions) Size Appeal of CymSTAR Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5329 (2012) (Area Office correct in finding no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule where protested firm prepared proposal, was sole interface with procuring agency, and provided all key management personnel for contract; rejects protester's contention that agency's response to one bidders' question regarding prospects for ECPs was enough to establish ECPs would all be awarded and were primary and vital requirements of contract) Size Appeal of J.R. Conkey & Assocs., Inc., d/b/a Solar Power Integrators, SBA No. SIZ-5326 (2012) (upholds Area Office's finding of no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule on construction contract where prime is sole contact with Government, has significant relevant experience, is performing a greater percentage of work than alleged ostensible subcontractor, and is clearly managing all of the contract work) Size Appeal of Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5312 (2012) (affirms Area Office's finding that firm did not run afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule (because it would be providing the large majority of what the Area Office determined were the primary requirements of the solicitation, even though that area of work barely qualified as the primary requirement) Size Appeal of National Sourcing, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5305 (2011) (reverses Area Office's finding that firm violated "ostensible subcontractor" rule; firm was not "unusually reliant" on alleged affiliate) Size Appeal of Onopa Management Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5302 (2011) (ostensible subcontractor; affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through unusual reliance on subcontractor for vital subcontract requirements) Size Appeal of DoverStaffing, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5300 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation under ostensible subcontractor rule due to unusual reliance on subcontractor because, inter alia, the firm intended to hire its key employees from sub and relied almost entirely on sub's past performance for past experience part of proposal) Size Appeal of Four Winds Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5293 PFR (2011) (denies petition for reconsideration of SIZ-5260 (which found violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) because a firm's proposal did contain firm commitment to perform the work at issue) Size Appeal of Spiral Solutions and Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5279 (2011) (reverses Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because prime contractor will perform the primary and vital contract requirements) Size Appeal of Bering Straits Logistics Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5277 (Sep. 2, 2011) (reverses Area Office's finding that a firm violated the ostensible subcontractor rule by unusual reliance on subcontractor, specifically rejecting Area Office's conclusions regarding key employees, the importance of a subcontractor's qualifications to obtaining the job, the percentages of labor costs attributable to the contractor and subcontractor, respectively, and the division of work assigned to each) Size Appeal of Four Winds Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5260 (2011) (firm that will perform the majority of the contract labor and will staff the second most influential contract position is ostensible subcontractor) Size Appeal of Accent Service Co., SBA No. SIZ-5237 (2011) (Master Subcontracting Agreement did not establish joint venture and did not establish that one firm was ostensible subcontractor of the other; the fact that contested firm often awarded subcontracts to another firm did not establish economic dependence, if anything it made the other firm dependent on contested firm) Size Appeal of The Patrick Wolffe Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5235 (2011) (reverses Area Office's finding of ostensible subcontractor because the offeror delegated specific contract tasks to be performed by its proposed subcontractor, the offeror alone will manufacture the contract items, its representative presided over the oral presentation, and the CO concluded that the offeror had the necessary experience and capability to produce the items and manage the contract) Size Appeal of Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5228 (2011) (affirms Area Office's determination that there was no violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Alutiiq Education & Training, LLC , SBA No. SIZ-5192 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of EarthCare Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5183 ( 2011) (affirms Area Office's finding that contested firm would be unusually reliant upon another firm under ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of TLC Catering, SBA No. SIZ-5172 (2010) (reverses Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule; subcontractor made sandwiches; prime provided all other box-lunch ingredients, assembled, delivered, and served them) Size Appeal of LOGMET, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5155 (2010) (reverses Area Office's size determination that firms were affiliated based on identity of interest and ostensible subcontractor rule; subcontracts did not rise to level of economic dependence; prime contractor had capacity to perform entire contract and chose to assign portion of work to subcontractor) Size Appeal of Colamette Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5151 (2010) (reverses Area Office determination of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because firm only agreed to perform small percentage of contract work, provided limited assistance in bid preparation, and shared bond indemnification; Area Office also confused some indicia of general affiliation with ostensible subcontractor issues) Size Appeal of DynaLantic Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5125 (2010) (vacates Area Office's denial of size protest and remands for further investigation of possible violations of clear fracture and ostensible subcontractor rules and other matters related to possible affiliation) Size Appeal of A1 Procurement, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5121 (2010) (upholds Area Office determination that firm ran afoul of ostensible subcontractor rule where firm had no experience in type of work required by contract and planned to use a large business as a subcontractor to perform undefined portion of work) Size Appeals of CWU, Inc. and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, SBA No. SIZ-5118 (2010) (upholds Area Office's determination that firm violated ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of SETA Support Services Alliance, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5111 (2010) (PFR) (denies petition for reconsideration of decision re ostensible subcontractor issues because the contract at issue already has been awarded) Size Appeal of Assurance Technology Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5104 (2009) (no jurisdiction over appeal alleging violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because contract has already been awarded) Size Appeal of Malouf Group, LLC., SBA No. SIZ-5102 (2009) (no jurisdiction over appeal alleging violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because contract has already been awarded) Size Appeals of SETA Support Alliance, LLC., SBA No. SIZ-5101 (2009) (protester failed to meet burden of proof that contractor was unusually reliant on subcontractors in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule; firm's tax returns show its annual receipts are within applicable size standard) Size Appeal of Alutiiq International Solutions LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5098 (2009) (overturns Area Office finding that firm violated ostensible subcontractor rule; firm's associations were with its parent rather than a subcontractor and also fell within ANC exemption to affiliation rules) Size Appeal of McKissack & McKissack, SBA No. SIZ-5093 (2009) (upholds Area Office determination that firm was not unduly reliant upon subcontractor in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of C.E. Garbutt Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5083 (2009) (firm violates ostensible subcontractor rule when its only contribution to project is HUBZone status and contract is essentially a pass through) Size Appeal of Fischer Business Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5075 (2009) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation and violation of ostensible rule under the totality of the circumstances because there was no finding of common managers and no finding of control or the power to control) Size Appeal of Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5069 (2009) (ostensible subcontractor rule; reverses Area Office's determination because, in requesting information from the protested firm, it did not inform it that the ostensible subcontractor rule was at issue or specifically request information relevant to that issue) Size Appeal of KVA Electric, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5045 (2009) (affiliation; Area Office determination to rely on firm's post-offer hearsay statements contradicting resumes submitted with offer that demonstrated reliance on employees of large business in violation of ostensible subcontractor rule was inappropriate) Size Appeal of Public Communications Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5008 (2008) (small participation by large subcontractor did not invoke ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of TCE Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5003 (2008) (overturns Area Office's finding of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of M&S Foods Ltd. Co., SBA No. SIZ-4971 (2008) (waiver of nonmanufacturer rule for individual procurement; scope of waiver invalidates Area Office's determination that contractor was unusually reliant on large business under ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of Sure-Way Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4972 (2008) (failure to provide information reasonably requested by Area Office; undue reliance on subcontractors; failure to specify which work will be provided by contractor and by subcontractors; ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of SES-TECH Global Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-4951 (2008) (reverses SBA conclusion that joint venture between 8(a) firm and its mentor does not quality for non 8(a) program because SBA improperly applied 8(a) regulations to the analysis; ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of RTL Networks, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4923 (2008) (ostensible subcontractor rule; unusual reliance) Size Appeal of PMTech, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4921 (2008) (appeal based upon ostensible subcontractor rule is dismissed because contract already has been awarded) Size Appeal of TKTM Corp., SBA No. SIZ-4885 (2008) (ostensible subcontractor rule; seven factors test) Size Appeal of Global Solutions Network, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4881 (2008) (dismissal of allegation of violation of ostensible subcontractor rule because contract already has been awarded) Size Appeal of ACCESS Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4843 (2007) (ostensible subcontractor rule; joint venture) Size Appeal of Faison Office Products, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4834 (2007) (affiliation; economic dependence; identity of interest; ostensible subcontractor rule) Miscellaneous Affiliation Issues; JV; Mentor- ProtégéSize 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 Size Appeal of VMX International, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5427 (2012) (Area Office's past size decision is not res judicata; affirms Area Office finding that firms are affiliated through economic dependence because one receives vast majority of its revenues from the other) Size Appeal of Civitas Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5424 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding affiliation by means of control by minority stockholder whose ownership interest was 1.75 times as large as next largest shareholder) Size Appeal of Bosco Constructors, SBA No. SIZ-5412 (2012) (continuation of Roundhouse saga; firm owned by Indian Tribe is exempt under 13 C.F.R. 121.103(b)(2) from finding of affiliation through common ownership or management) Size Appeal of Alleo Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-5405 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that two firms are affiliated through identity of interests because principals of firms are mother and son, respectively) Size Appeal of Willow Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5403 (2012) (reverses Area Office determination; challenged firm is not affiliated with other firm by either identity of interest or newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of Professional Performance Development Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5398 (2012) (affirms Area Office's decision that protester did not present specific evidence of violation of 3-in-2 joint venture rule and, even if it had, violation would have been irrelevant because protested firm was member of approved 8(a) mentor-protégé arrangement at time of alleged violation) Size Appeal of Environmental Restoration, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5395 (2012) (remands case to Area Office, which had not adequately analyzed possible affiliation through common management, including several identical board members on both alleged affiliates) Size Appeal of Roundhouse PBN, LLC, SBA No.. SIZ-5383 (2012) (Area Office erred in finding firm owned by holding company itself owned by a federally-recognized Indian tribe certified as economically disadvantaged by the SBA was affiliated with other firms owned by same holding company through newly organized concern rule, identity of interest, ostensible subcontractor rule, or totality of circumstances) Size Appeal of TFab Manufacturing, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5379 (2012) (affirms Area Office's decision not to examine affiliation because protester did not allege it in its protest) Size Appeal of Reliable Contracting Group, SBA No. SIZ-5384 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that two firms are not affiliated because assistance provided by one to another is pursuant to a valid mentor-protégé agreement) Size Appeal of Alutiiq Education & Training, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5371 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that firms are not affiliated under identity of interest, ostensible subcontractor, or totality of circumstances rules) Size Appeal of Allied Technical Services Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5373 (2012) (upholds Area Office's conclusion that both 40% and 35% owners of firm have the power to control it, and, therefore, firm is affiliated with other firms controlled the 40% owner) Size Appeal of Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5372 (2012) (vacates Area Office decision; Area Office improperly analyzed 5 year-old violation of "3-in-2" rule not raised in size protest and without giving notice of its concern to the protested firm; violation of "3-in-2" rule ( particularly by 8(a) BD mentor and protégé when the joint venture in question is not even involved in the instant procurement) does not automatically mean general affiliation exists, but might necessitate further inquiry) Size Appeal of W.I.N.N. Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5360 (2012) (affirms Area Office conclusion on "present effect rule": firms had not reached agreement in principle to merge as of date of submission of original quote on solicitation; fact that firms merged after that date does not affect original size determination ) Size Appeal of AIS Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5348 (2012) (Area Office correctly found that firm's purchase of only some of assets of large business did not invoke successor-in-interest rule; interdivisional transactions excluded from calculation of receipts) Size Appeal of RGB Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5351 (2012) (upholds Area Office of finding of affiliation through identity of interest with no clear fracture between husband and wife who had numerous ties to one another in operation of firms) Size Appeal of Advent Environmental, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5325 (2012) (affiliation through common ownership and control; affirms Area Office finding that, pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 121.103(c)(2), one of four owners of 25% shares in company (who also served on its board of managers) had power to control it and was not merely passive investor) Size Appeal of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5324 (2012) (reverses Area Office; "present effect" rule does not require finding of affiliation where discussions between two firms concerning merger or acquisition had not reached status of agreement in principle at time of self-certification (although agreement was reached three weeks later); NAICS code under which size should have been assessed was the one the Prime Contractor had assigned to the RFP in question rather than the NAICS code for the firm's primary industry) Size Appeal of SP Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5319 (2012) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation through identify of interest because there was a clear fracture between the allegedly affiliated firms and the individual with the alleged identity of interest is a minority shareholder who does not control the allegedly related firm) Size Appeal of Trident3, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5315 (2012) (overturns Area Office's size determination because 8(a) firm's joint venture agreement was approved prior to award of 8(a) contract and Area Office lacks authority to review mentor-protégé agreements in context of 8(a) procurements) Size Appeal of Rio Vista Management, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5316 (2012) (Area Office's size determination contained multiple errors, including (i) reliance on circumstances occurring more than three years before date of size determination; (ii) finding affiliation from assistance properly provided under approved 8(a) mentor-protégé agreement; (iii) finding violation of newly-organized concern rule when firm's founder was not in one of proscribed positions at predecessor firm; and (iv) finding affiliation based on identity of interest between two individuals when neither of them controls allegedly affiliated firm) Size Appeal of Technibilt, LTD., SBA No. SIZ-5304 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding that, under 13 C.F.R. 121.103(c)(2), contested firm was affiliated with two firms that each owned approximately 36% of stock in company that controlled contested firm) Size Appeal of GPA Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5307 (2011) (reverses Area Office's findings of affiliation; no basis for finding lack of clear fracture or identity of interest based on limited number of shared employees) Size Appeal of TPG Consulting, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5306 (2011) (affirms Area Office determination that firm is affiliated with Toyota through economic dependence on Toyota as firm's customer) Size Appeal of BR Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5303 (2011) (minority owner has negative control where operating agreement requires his approval for many types of actions) Size Appeal of Norris Professional Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5289 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding that firms were affiliated through economic dependence) Size Appeal of Eagle Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5288 PFR (2011) (OHA denies petition for reconsideration of SIZ-5267, which found company was affiliated with another through economic dependence) Size Appeal of Coastal Management Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5281 (2011) (Area Office improperly treated appellant as newly organized concern when it had already been an active business for six years) Size Appeal of ETouch Federal Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5280 (2011) (upholds Area Office findings that firms were affiliated through the newly-organized concern rule (where there was no clear fracture) and by identity of interest due to economic dependence). Size Appeal of ETouch Federal Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5271 (Aug. 25, 2011) ( same holding) Size Appeal of DMI Educational Training LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5276 (2011) (affirms Area Office's findings of affiliation due to adverse inference (after firm failed to provide information requested by Area Office), even though Area Office was incorrect on application of newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of DMI Educational Training LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5275 (2011) (affirms Area Office's findings of affiliation under (i) common management existing as of the self-certification date and (ii) adverse inference test (for failing to provide information requested by Area Office), even though Area Office was incorrect on application of newly organized concern rule) Size Appeal of SolarCity Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5257 (2011) (affiliation through identity of interest and ownership of minority blocks of stock large in comparison to other ownership interests; application of adverse inference rule after firm refused to provide requested information) Size Appeal of CJW Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5254 ( 2011) (reverses Area Office's size determination because Area Office erroneously (i) looked behind valid mentor-protégé agreement to find violation of the newly-organized concern rule; (ii) found violation of newly-organized concern rule based on key employee of the new firm who had not been an owner, officer, director, or key employee of prior firm; and (iii) found affiliation based on totality of the circumstances based on erroneous and inadequate considerations) Size Appeal of Native Energy & Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5249 (2011) (various affiliation issues) Size Appeal of Manroy USA, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5244 (2011) (overturns Area Office's finding of identity of interest because business ties between individual and firm are limited to furthering business of challenged entity) Size Appeal of Innovative Resources, SBA No. SIZ-5238 (2011) (affirms Area Office's finding that contested firm was not generally affiliated with its joint venture partners under 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)) Size Appeal of Accent Service Co., SBA No. SIZ-5237 ( 2011) (Master Subcontracting Agreement did not establish joint venture and did not establish that one firm was ostensible subcontractor of the other; the fact that contested firm often awarded subcontracts to another firm did not establish economic dependence, if anything it made the other firm dependent on contested firm) Size Appeal of Active Deployment Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5230 ( 2011) (firm formed by four former employees of bankrupt firm (none of whom were officers, directors, or owners of that firm) was not affiliated with bankrupt firm through newly-organized concern rule even though these personnel were employed by bankruptcy trustee to assist in winding up the former firm) Size Appeal of McClendon Acres, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5222 (2011) (affiliation with various firms through majority ownership, management interest based on initial capital contributions, ownership of non-majority block of stock large compared to other blocks, identity of family interests without clear fracture; Area Office failed to determine primary industry of firm applying for HUBZone statue to apply size standard for that industry) Size Appeal of Hal Hayes Construction Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5217 (2011) (substantial, ongoing contracts between firms support Area Office's finding of affiliation through identity of interests; calculation of receipts--Arizona Transaction Privilege Tax and inter-affiliate transactions) Size Appeal of DHS Systems LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5211 (2011) (affirms finding of affiliation through negative control) Size Appeal of Active Deployment Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5216 (2011) (vacates Area Office's decision and finds firms affiliated through common management) Size Appeal of Grantco Pacific, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5205 ( 2011) (affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation through identity of interest of firm owned by son with another firm owned by parents) Size Appeal of Argus and Black, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5204 (2011) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation through economic dependence because it was based only on one, small contract and did not satisfy the conditions for such a finding) Size Appeal of Siga Technologies, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5201 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through control: individual who controls two firms whose combined ownership interest in protested firm, although a minority, is large compared to all other ownership interests) Size Appeal of David Boland, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5189 (2011) (affirms Area Office's finding of no current affiliation with large business that was a former affiliate under totality of circumstances, identity of interest, clear fracture, and common management analyses) Size Appeal of C2G Ltd Co., SBA No. SIZ-5186 (2011) (reverses Area Office; firm is no longer affiliated with former affiliate under former affiliate rule because former affiliate is no longer primary source of its revenue) Size Appeal of Sabre88, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5161 (2010) (affirms Area Office finding of affiliation through the newly organized concern rule because one firm's Managing Member was a key employee of the other and there was no clear evidence of fracture) Size Appeal of LGS Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5160 (2010) (affirms Area Office determination that common address was not enough to establish affiliation between two firms in light of other indications to the contrary) Size Appeal of Beltsville Industries Group, Inc.-Desbuild Incorporated Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5157 (2010) (affirms Area Office; mentor-protégé firms that formed four joint ventures, no single one of which violated the 3 in 2 rule, were not affiliated with one another, and the various joint ventures were not affiliates) Size Appeal of LOGMET, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5155 (2010) (reverses Area Office's size determination that firms were affiliated based on identity of interest and ostensible subcontractor rule; subcontracts did not rise to level of economic dependence; prime contractor had capacity to perform entire contract and chose to assign portion of work to subcontractor) Size Appeal of Cummings Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5153 (2010) (affirms Area Office's finding of affiliation based upon identity of interest (via economic dependence) with 49% owner) Size Appeal of Gulf-Shred, Inc. dba Shred-It Mobile/Biloxi, SBA No. SIZ-5149 (2010) (reverses Area Office determination that appellant was other than small because indemnity provision in franchise agreement did not create affiliation between franchisor and franchisee and franchise agreement did not give franchisor power to control franchisee) Size Appeal of Speegle Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5147 (2010) (upholds Area Office finding of affiliation due to identity of interest between family members because there is insufficient evidence of clear fracture where the challenged family member was a Vice President with, among other things, the power to control the firm upon the absence or inability of its President) Size Appeal of The Clement Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5146 (2010) (reverses Area Office finding of affiliation through negative control because, under Alabama law, 51% owner could remove directors who are trying to prevent action by refusing to attend meeting and thereby preventing quorum) Size Appeal of Specialized Veterans, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5138 (2010) (affiliation through totality of circumstances including technical and financial assistance, e.g., enabling protested firm to obtain required bonding) Size Appeal of Summit Technologies & Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5132 (2010) (reverses Area Office's finding of affiliation under totality of circumstances rule) Size Appeal of Incisive Technology Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5122 (2010) (almost total dependence by firm on subcontracts with one large firm for revenues creates affiliation through economic dependence) Size Appeal of Condor Reliability Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5116 (2010) (affiliation by identity of interest among family members without sufficient evidence of clear line of fracture) Size Appeal of Jenn-Kans, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5114 (2010) (affiliation; identity of interest; clear fracture analysis) Size Appeal of Jenn-Kans, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5128 (2010) (PFR) (affirms prior decision on reconsideration; affiliation; clear fracture rule) Size Appeal of Diverse Construction Group, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5112 (2010) (reverses Area Office finding of affiliation; identity of interest and totality of circumstances issues; control or power to control) Size Appeal of Blue Cord Construction Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5077 (2009) (finding of affiliation where there is no fracture and where newly organized concern is established by officer and key employee of a firm that is also providing it with technical and financial assistance) Size Appeal of Fischer Business Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5075 (2009) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation and violation of ostensible rule under the totality of the circumstances because there was no finding of common managers and no finding of control or the power to control) Size Appeal of Taylor Consultants Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5049 (2009) (upholds finding of affiliation based on identity of interest, stock ownership, and the totality of the circumstances) Size Appeal of Hallmark Phoenix-8, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5046 (2009) (firm is still affiliated with firm that has not completed steps for dissolution) Size Appeal of Henderson Group Unlimited, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5034 (2009) (reverses Area Office determination of affiliation because business rebutted that presumption by establishing "clear fracture") Size Appeal of Forterra Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5029 (2009) (affiliation when minority block of voting stock is large compared to any other minority voting block) Size Appeal of Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5023 (2009) (affiliation through negative control of supermajority veto power; control though ownership of block of stock large in comparison to other blocks--here, 35.7% for largest shareholder to 19.6% for next largest) Size Appeal of Cummings Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5022 (2009) (affiliation through control; reverses Area Office determination; capital contributions are not a factor in determining affiliation; therefore, only the member who had the majority membership interest had the power to control a limited liability company, even though two members had made equal capital contributions) Size Appeal of RX Technology Corp., SBA No. SIZ-4998 (2008) (affiliation by 100% stock ownership) Size Appeal of DCS Night Vision JV, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4997 (2008) (joint venture involving mentor-protege agreement and 8(a) firm) Size Appeal of Firewatch Contracting of Florida, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4994 (2008) (failure to provide required documentation to Area Office; three party test for upholding Area Office's request for documentation; affiliation) Size Appeal of Luke & Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-4993 PFR (2008) (denies petition for reconsideration; 8(a) procurements; joint ventures; mentor-protégé arrangements) Size Appeal of Medical and Occupational Services Alliance, SBA No. SIZ-4989 (2008) (joint venture; mentor-protégé; whether solicitation modification rendered original offers nonresponsive) Size Appeal of Baldt, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4987 (2008) (affiliation with numerous companies) Size Appeal of Luke & Assocs., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4981 (2008) (joint ventures; affiliation; mentor-protégé; the requirements of 13 C.F.R. 124.513 do not apply to non-8(a) set-aside procurements) Size Appeal of Novalar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4977 (2008) (affiliated companies; single-largest minority shareholder rule; multiple-largest minority shareholders rule; affiliation through control of board of directors) Size Appeal of L&S Industrial and Marine, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4978 (2008) (affiliation; family members; identity of interest; contracts between firms) Size Appeal of EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4973 (2008) (when an Architect/Engineer firm is selected for negotiation in accordance with FAR 36.606, the five day protest period in 13 C.F.R. 121.1004(a)(2) is triggered. Area Office’s determination of affiliation based upon an identity of interest is not supported by 13 C.F.R. 121.103(f); Area Office's determination that firm has the negative power to control Appellant based upon the supermajority requirements of the Stockholder Agreement, and thus the concerns are affiliates, constituted a clear error of law) Size Appeal of C&C International Computers and Consultants, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4970 (2008) (mentor-protege relationships; the three-offer-in-two-year rule for joint ventures) Size Appeal of Diversified Global Partners JV LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4967 (2008) (mentor-protégé; Area Office improperly applied an 8(a) regulation to a procurement unrelated to the 8(a) BD program) Size Appeal of The ORASA Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4966 (2008) (overturns Area Office's finding of affiliation based on identity of interest in mentor-protégé relationship) Size Appeal of David Boland, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4965 (2008) (affiliation established by long term relationship; reliance on another firm for assistance in obtaining bonding) Size Appeal of J.W. Mills Management, SBA No. SIZ-4955 (2008) (control; "unusually reliant"; inapplicability of former seven factors test) Size Appeal of SES-TECH Global Solutions, SBA No. SIZ-4951 (2008) (reverses SBA conclusion that joint venture between 8(a) firm and its mentor does not quality for non 8(a) program because SBA improperly applied 8(a) regulations to the analysis; ostensible subcontractor rule) Size Appeal of White Hawk/Todd, a Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-4950 (2008) (OHA will not review mentor/protégé issues on an 8(a) procurement) Size Appeal of In and Out Valet Co., SBA No. SIZ-4949 (2008) (affiliation) Size Appeal of Colt Defense LLC, SBA No. Siz-4943 (2008) (overturns area office's finding of affiliation because there is insufficient evidence of power to control) Size Appeal of DMS Facility Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4913 (2008) (affiliation; power to control) Size Appeal of J. W. Mills Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4909 (2008) (affiliation under newly organized concern rule; key employee) Size Appeal of The H. L. Turner Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4896 (2008) (affiliation based on identity of interest) Size Appeal of Vortec Development, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4866 (2007) (affiliation; identity of interest; newly organized concern) Size Appeal of Weidlinger Associates, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4846 (2007) (affiliation; power to control; number of employees) Size Appeal of ACCESS Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4843 (2007) (ostensible subcontractor rule; joint venture) Size Appeal of Faison Office Products, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4834 (2007) (affiliation; economic dependence; identity of interest; ostensible subcontractor rule) Calculation of Annual Receipts; Revenues; Number of Employees 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) Size Appeal of AIS Engineering, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5348 (2012) (Area Office correctly found that firm's purchase of only some of assets of large business did not invoke successor-in-interest rule; interdivisional transactions excluded from calculation of receipts) Size Appeal of Williams Adley & Company -- DC, LLP, SBA No. SIZ-5341 (2012) (upholds Area Office's use of firm's tax return not filed until after self-certification but available at time of size review) Size Appeal of The Associated Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5314 (2011) (Area Office properly included firm's interdivisional labor receipts in calculating its average annual receipts) Size Appeal of Griswold Industries dba CLA-VAL Co., SBA No. SIZ-5274 (2011) (affirms Area Office's decision to count firm's "inactive employees" in determining size) Size Appeal of The MayaTech Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5269 (2011) (affirms Area Office; reimbursements for items contractor purchases at customer's request under government contracts and subcontracts are not excluded from receipts under 13 C.F.R. 121.104(a)) Size Appeal of Hui O Aina, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5262-PFR (2011) (grants petition for reconsideration of SIZ-5245; contested firm is not small business because proper interpretation of footnote 1 to 13 C.F.R. 121.201 ("A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours") means (i) the majority to the receipts of the challenged concern, itself, must be derived from the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy, and (ii) the majority of the aggregated receipts of the challenged concern and its affiliates must be derived from the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy) Size Appeal of Malouf Construction, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5250 (2011) (affirms Area Office's inclusion of Mississippi Material Purchase Certificate tax in firm's average annual receipts because tax is levied on prime contractors and there is no indication it is to be collected from firm's customers on behalf of taxing authority) Size Appeal of Hal Hays Construction, Inc., SBA No-SIZ-5234 ( 2011) (under 13 C.F.R. 121.104(a)(1), SBA must use tax returns filed before date of self-certification to determine size, not amended returns filed after that date but before the initiation of the size determination) Size Appeal of C2 Freight Resources, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5223 (2011) (vacates Area Office's determination because amounts a firm collects for freight carriers as a property broker should be excluded from the calculation of its annual receipts) Size Appeal of Barlovento LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5191 (2011) (calculation of average annual receipts when multiple joint ventures are involved) Size Appeal of Allstates Employer Services II, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5190 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding that firm average annual receipts exceeded applicable size standard; issue of number of employees that should be counted for firm supplying employee leasing services is irrelevant) (this appeal has disappeared from the SBA database, although there are other decisions that still cite to it) Size Appeal of Southeastern Protective Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5152 (2010) (calculation of gross revenue from income reported on tax returns; no evidence that firm was engaged in joint venture; only evidence shows prime/sub relationship) Size Appeal of Judson Builders, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5144 (2010) (as required by the regulations, Area Office relied on tax returns filed by firm before it self-certified, instead of amended returns it filed after initiation of size determination) Size Appeal of J. M. Waller Associates, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5108 (2010) (use of "total income plus costs of goods sold" on tax returns to calculate annual receipts; firm may not raise evidence on appeal it failed to submit to Area Office; no exception for section 481(a) adjustments) Size Appeal of Social Impact, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5105 (2010) (petition for reconsideration of SIZ-5090; inclusion of conference management revenues in annual receipts as amounts collected for another pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.104(a)) Size Appeal of Social Impact, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5090 (2009) (Area Office committed a clear error when it determined business properly excluded conference management revenues from its annual receipts as amounts collected for another pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.104(a) and consequently concluded the business was a small business) Size Appeal of Leader Communications, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5036 (2009) (New Mexico gross receipts tax and GSA funding fee were both properly included in calculating annual receipts) Size Appeal of Alpha Protective Services, SBA No. SIZ-5035 (2009) (calculation of annual receipts where joint venture is involved) Size Appeal of Social Impact, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5028 (2009) (vacates Area Office decision and remands for further proceedings to determine whether certain amounts were "collected for another" and thus fall under the exclusion from requirement to include them in firm's gross receipts pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 121.104(a)) Size Appeal of Channel Logistics, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5019 (2008) (annual receipts determined by taking average of three most recent "completed" fiscal years) Size Appeal of Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5005 (2008) (size based on revenues of firm plus its affiliates) Size Appeal of DCT Incorporated, SBA No. SIZ-4996 (2008) (size based on revenues of firm plus its affiliates) Size Appeal of Social Impact, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4990 (2008) (annual receipts; exclusion of "amounts collected for another") Size Appeal of Crown Moving & Storage Co. d/b/a Crown Worldwide Moving and Storage, SBA No. SIZ-4872 (2007) (reverses Area Office size determination; exclusion of inter-affiliate transaction receipts) Size Appeal of Engineering Support Personnel, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4865 (2007) (receipts of affiliates) Size Appeal of Seminole Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4847 (2007) (timeliness of appeal; tax returns as evidence of receipts) Size Appeal of Thomas Computer Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4841 (2007) (tax returns as evidence; calendar versus fiscal year) Size Appeal of ASRC Airfield and Range Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4835 (2007) (overruling Size Appeal of K-Mar Industries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-3926 (1994); no requirement to generate revenues or make profit to be "in business") 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) Size Appeal of W.I.N.N. Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5360 (2012) (affirms Area Office conclusion on "present effect rule": firms had not reached agreement in principle to merge as of date of submission of original quote on solicitation; fact that firms merged after that date does not affect original size determination ) Size Appeal of IAP-Leopardo Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5127 (2010) (vacates Area Office determination because it did not calculate size as of time of priced offer) Size Appeal of Cox Construction Co., SBA No. SIZ-5070 (2009) (for purposes of determining a firm's size, SBA's size regulations control over any conflicting FAR regulations; affirms Area Office's determination that firm was other than small as of the date it submitted its first priced offer, even though the Contracting Officer had not required recertification of size status at that time; interpretation of 13 C.F.R. 121.404(a)) Size Appeal of Pyramid Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4879 (2008) (date for determining size status; solicitation did not qualify as two-step sealed bidding) 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) Size Appeal of Environmental Restoration, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5395 (2012) (remands case to Area Office, which had not adequately analyzed possible affiliation through common management, including several identical board members on both alleged affiliates) Size Appeal of Carntribe-Clement 8AJV # 1, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5357 (2012) (reverses Area Office finding that firm was not eligible small business because Area Office improperly conducted an analysis of firm's compliance with 8(a) business development requirements, which is beyond Area Office's jurisdiction in size protest, and because Area Office used wrong legal standard to find affiliation through negative control) Size Appeal of Ceres Environmental Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5342 (2012) (Area Office incorrectly conducted size determination in unrestricted procurement on firm that did not check box representing itself as small; Area Office's reliance on CCH data, ORCA status not available until after submission of original priced offer, and self-certification on another procurement was misplaced) Size Appeal of Hardie's Fruit & Vegetable Company South, LP, SBA No. SIZ-5347 (2012) (vacates Area Office decision and remands for further analysis because (i) it is not clear which NAICS codes were used in procurements, which in turn, may affect which protest allegations the Area Office should have considered; and (ii) Area Office improperly applied simplified acquisition exemption to analysis of procurements) Size Appeal of IRA Green, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5287 (2011) (clear error for the Area Office to determine a firm complied with the nonmanufacturer rule solely on the basis of the firm's bare assertions (without requiring any proof) that it normally sold the type of item in question and that it would supply the product of a U.S. small business manufacturer) Size Appeal of Mark Dunning Industries, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5284 (2011) (Area Office did not adequately investigate a firm's adequately specific allegations of affiliation) Size Appeal of Innovative Resources, SBA No. SIZ-5231 ( 2011) (remands case to Area Office to explain (i) which regulatory provision it used in making size determination and (ii) which firms' receipts it used in its calculations) Size Appeal of McClendon Acres, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5222 (2011) (affiliation with various firms through majority ownership, management interest based on initial capital contributions, ownership of non-majority block of stock large compared to other blocks, identity of family interests without clear fracture; Area Office failed to determine primary industry of firm applying for HUBZone status and to apply size standard for that industry) Size Appeal of Innovative Construction & Management Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5202 (2011) (reverses Area Office determination that firm 8(a) firm was other than small because Area Office determined its size as of the date of notice to firm that its size was in question rather than the (later) date it was certified as small by the SBA as required by the regulations) [SH note--I can no longer locate a link to this decision] Size Appeal of Space Concepts, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5169 (2010) (remands case to Area Office for further investigation whether company awarded small business set-aside contract complies with nonmanufacturer rule) Size Appeal of PMTech, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5142 (2010) (remands case to Area Office with requirement that it include additional information in its size determination concerning total average employee count of protested firm and its affiliates) Size Appeal of America's Pride, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5135 (2010) (vacates Area Office's decision to dismiss protest as untimely) Size Appeal of N. J. Balloon Manufacturing, SBA No. SIZ-5134 (2010) (vacates Area Office's determination that protest was untimely because agency had not provided protester with timely, accurate notice of award) Size Appeal of Summit Technologies & Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5132 (2010) (reverses Area Office's finding of affiliation under totality of circumstances rule) Size Appeal of PRO SERVICES--Teltara Joint Venture, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5115 (2010) (reverses Area Office because it did not take adequate steps to investigate indicia of affiliation) Size Appeal of IAP-Leopardo Construction, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5127 (Apr. 27, 2010) (vacates Area Office determination because it did not calculate size as of time of priced offer) Size Appeal of ONS21 Security Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5131 (May 12, 2010) (successful size protest; Area Office had no authority to change NAICS code assigned to a procurement in response to a size protest and absent a NAICS code protest; protested firm's receipts clearly exceeded the limit established by the NAICS code in the solicitation) Size Appeal of DynaLantic Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5125 (April 22, 2010) (vacates Area Office's denial of size protest and remands for further investigation of possible violations of clear fracture and ostensible subcontractor rules and other matters related to possible affiliation) Size Appeal of TPMC-Energy Solutions Environmental Services 2009, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5109 (Jan. 19, 2010) (ostensible subcontractor rule; Area Office did not adequately explain its rationale for finding of affiliation) Size Appeal of Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5069 (2009) (ostensible subcontractor rule; reverses Area Office's determination because, in requesting information from the protested firm, it did not inform it that the ostensible subcontractor rule was at issue or specifically request information relevant to that issue) Size Appeal of Corporate Training and Development, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4849 (2007) (inadequate analysis by Area Office) Size Appeal of Tiger Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4848 (2007) (inadequate analysis by Area Office)
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)
Size Appeal of American Construction Co., Inc.,
SBA No. SIZ-5420 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that
challenged firm complied with 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, n.2: to be
considered small under exception in regulations for Dredging and
Surface Cleanup Activities under NAICS Code 237990, "firm must perform
at least 40% of the volume dredged with its own equipment or equipment
owned by Size Appeal of Professional Product Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5411 (2012) (where FSS solicitation set aside for small businesses was silent as to which NAICS code applied, Area Office chose an appropriate size standard following size protest, pursuant to which appellant was not small) Size Appeal of Wear Mark, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5397 (2012) (affirms Area Office finding that challenged firm satisfied ownership requirement of nonmanufacturer rule at 13 C.F.R. 121.406(b)(iii) by arranging for transportation of contract items; existence of of carrier lien on goods is irrelevant) Size Appeal of M1 Support Services, LP, SBA No. SIZ-5297 (2011) (affirms Area Office finding that firm was not the manufacturer of contract items and was too large to qualify for the nonmanufacturer rule) Size Appeal of OSC Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5253 (2011) (affirms Area Office's decision because solicitation is one for services and, therefore, the nonmanufacturer rule and the 500 employee size standard do not apply) Size Appeal of McClendon Acres, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5222 (2011) (Area Office failed to determine primary industry of firm applying for HUBZone status and to apply the size standard for that primary industry) Size Appeal of Emerald BioStructures, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5221 ( 2011) (under 13 C.F.R. 121.702(a)(1), firm with multiple layers of corporate ownership above it is ineligible to participate in the SBIR program) Size Appeal of Pugh Enterprises, SBA No. SIZ-5194 ( 2011) (affirms (i) decision that a firm was not eligible for a disaster loan and (ii) determination of its primary industry) Size Appeal of Space Concepts, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5169 (2010) (remands case to Area Office for further investigation whether company awarded small business set-aside contract complies with nonmanufacturer rule) Size Appeal of ONS21 Security Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5131 (May 12, 2010) (successful size protest; Area Office had no authority to change NAICS code assigned to a procurement in response to a size protest and absent a NAICS code protest; protested firm's receipts clearly exceeded the limit established by the NAICS code in the solicitation) Size Appeal of Silver Enterprises Assocs., SBA No. SIZ-5124 (Apr. 19, 2010) (affirms Area Office size determination because probative value of signed statements provided under penalty of perjury by challenged firm outweighs general allegations of protester) Size Appeal of Inuit Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5079 (2009) (firm's submission to Area Office showing it to be other than small is dispositive even when firm asserts, and offers evidence, on appeal that its original submission was mistaken) Size Appeal of Taylor Consultants, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5074 (2009) (affirms Area Office's determination that contractor's request for recertification was inadequate to demonstrate it was small, especially when it included the same information the Area Office had used to determine originally that the contractor was other than small) Size Appeal of KVA Electric, SBA No. SIZ-5057 (2009) (denies petition for reconsideration) Size Appeal of Vista Engineering Technologies, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5041 (2009) (reverses Area Office's size determination because it was based on the wrong NAICS code) Size Appeal of El Poco Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5001 (2008) (request for reconsideration may not be based on changed circumstances) Size Appeal of M&S Foods Ltd. Co., SBA No. SIZ-4988 (2008) (remand order) Size Appeal of Batteries Plus of Sumter, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4980 (2008) (nonmanufacturer rule; simplified acquisition procedures) Size Appeal of USA Jet Airlines, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4969 (2008) (request for reconsideration; clarifies conclusion of prior decision) Size Appeal of White Hawk/Todd, a Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-4968, 4950 (PFR) (2008) (denies petition for reconsideration of White Hawk II) Size Appeal of TKTM Corp., SBA No. SIZ-4905 (2008) (denying petition for reconsideration that did not allege any errors in original decision) Size Appeal of Global Solutions Network, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4892PFR, -4881 (2008) (motion for reconsideration denied) Size Appeal of Precision Lift, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4876 (Dec. 17, 2007) (reverses Area Office determination that bidder did not propose to provide item manufactured by small domestic manufacturer) Size Appeal of Hallmark-Phoenix Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-4870 (2007) (documentary evidence versus oral testimony; weight) Size Appeal of USA Jet Airlines, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4867 (2007) (order to supplement factual record and basis for decision) Size Appeal of Fernandez Enterprises, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4863 (2007) (country of manufacture) NAICS Appeal of Inklings Media Company, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4850 (2007) (NAICS Code 541330 v. 541710; note that the "SIZ" designation is probably the SBA's mistake--this is a NAICS appeal) Size Appeal of Tikigaq Eng'g Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4842 (2007) (offeror not engaged in business covered by NAICS code) Size Appeal of Doyon Properties, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4838 (2007) (meaning of "primarily engaged in") Size Appeal of Columbus Technologies and Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4831 (2007) (transactions between a concern and its affiliates) Size 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) 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 (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)
NAICS Appeal of IMPAQ International, LLC,
SBA No. NAICS-5415 (2012) (affirms CO's designation of NAICS Code 541611,
Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, as opposed
to 541720, Research and Development
in the Social Sciences and Humanities, to cover solicitation for support for Job
Corps' data integrity, program evaluation and statistical support program
functions) NAICS Appeal of edCount, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5396 (2012) (CO erred by stating that two NAICS codes, with very different size standards, might apply to the instant procurement, and by indicating that ED would determine which of those codes to utilize only at the time of contract award; use of NAICS Code 611710 (educational support services) for procurement was unobjectionable) NAICS Appeal of J.D. Broco, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5389 (2012) (dismisses protest for lack of standing because protester was not a qualified offeror on the procurement) NAICS Appeal of R. Christopher Goodwin & Assocs., Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5382 (2012) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal of Contracting Officer's NAICS designation filed more than 10 calendar days after issuance of solicitation, noting that reference to 10 "business" days in 13 C.F.R. 121.1103(b)(1) is inadvertent, clerical error) NAICS Appeal of Eagle Home Medical Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5378 (2012) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal of Contracting Officer's NAICS designation filed more than 10 calendar days after issuance of solicitation, noting that reference to 10 "business" days in 13 C.F.R. 121.1103(b)(1) is inadvertent, clerical error) NAICS Appeal of Delphi Research, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5377 (2012) (successful appeal; correct NAICS designation for procurement to perform research facilities and engineering support services at the Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) is NAICS Code 541513, Computer Facilities Management Services (with a corresponding size standard of $25.5 million in average annual receipts), not NAICS Code 541712, Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)) NAICS Appeal of Dial General Engineering,SBA No. NAICS-5375 (2012) (successful appeal; correct NAICS designation for procurement to raise, realign, and reset upright marble headstones, flat markers and private headstones onto a new marker grid support system at a National Cemetery is NAICS Code 238110, Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors (with a corresponding $14 million annual receipts size standard), not NAICS Code 561730, Landscaping Services) NAICS Appeal of CHP International, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5367 (2012) (successful appeal; correct designation for procurement of Job Corps outreach and admissions and career training services is NAICS Code 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (with a corresponding $14 million annual receipts size standard), not NAICS Code 561990, All Other Support Services (with a corresponding $7 million annual receipts size standard) NAICS Appeal of Ash Stevens, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5368 (2012) (dismisses appeal as untimely filed more than 10 days after solicitation issued and more than 10 days after Government notified protester that size standard in solicitation was erroneous)NAICS Appeal of Dellew Corporation, SBA No. NAICS-5358 (2012) (affirms Contracting Officer's designation of 561210, Facilities Support Services) NAICS Appeal of Hummingbird Solutions, SBA No. NAICS-5334 (2012) (dismisses, as untimely, NAICS appeal filed more than 10 days after issuance of solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Millennium Engineering and Integration Co., SBA No. NAICS-5309 (2011) (upholds Contracting Officer's assignment in NASA procurement of the exception for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons under NAICS Code 541330, engineering Services) NAICS Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5296 (2011) (solicitation for physicians' services was properly classified under NAICS Code 621111 (Offices of Physicians, Except Mental Health Specialists) rather than 622110 (General Medical and Surgical Hospitals)) NAICS Appeal of InGenesis, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5295 (2011) (solicitation for nursing services was properly classified under NAICS Code 621399 (Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Care Professionals) rather than NAICS Code 622110 (General Medical and Surgical Hospitals)) NAICS Appeal of AllSource Global Management, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5292 (2011) (solicitation for administrative support services (including clerical, secretarial, logistical, and administrative services) to various health clinics was properly classified under NAICS Code 561110 (Office Administrative Services) rather than 561210 (Facilities Support Services)) NAICS Appeal of Ferris Optical, SBA No. NAICS-5285 (2011) (solicitation was properly classified under NAICS Code 446130 (Optical Goods Stores) rather than 339115 (Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing), as requested by appellant) NAICS Appeal of PAC Systems, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5273 (2011) (agrees with appellant that proper NAICS Code is 561621 (Security Systems Services) instead of 561900 (Other Support Services)) NAICS Appeal of Technica Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5248 (2011) (solicitation for global information services grid management engineering, transition, and implementation was properly classified under NAICS Code 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services) rather than NAICS Code 517110 (Wired Telecommunications Carriers)) NAICS Appeal of Secure Network Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5246 (2011) (NAICS appeal filed based on a presolicitation (and before issuance of the actual solicitation) was premature) NAICS Appeal of Bevilacqua Research Corp, SBA No. NAICS-5243 (2011) (affirms Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 541690, Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services rather than 541712 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biology) NAICS Appeal of Appledore Marine Engineering, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5240 (2011) (affirms Contracting Officer's determination that procurement not appropriate for the Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture exemption to its correct NAICS Code 541330 (Engineering Services)) NAICS Appeal of NexOne, SBA No. NAICS-5233 (2011) (dismisses as premature appeal concerning presolicitation notice) NAICS Appeal of CWU, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5226 (2011) (Appellant's suggestion of NAICS Code 561320 (Temporary Health Services) should be used instead of Contracting Officer's designation of 561210 (Facilities Support Services)) NAICS Appeal of Head, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5218 (2011) (PFR) (OHA does not reconsider its NAICS decisions) NAICS Appeal of Head, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5214 (2011) (firm lacks standing to bring appeal because, in unrestricted procurement, it has not shown how it is eligible for any price or evaluation preference based on the NAICS designation in the solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Phoenix Environmental Design, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5212 (2011) (Contracting Officer should have assigned the manufacturing NAICS code 325320, Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing, instead of the wholesale trade NAICS code 424910, Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers, because RFQ is for supplies) NAICS Appeal of Quantum Research International, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5206 (2011) (appeal filed more than 10 days after the issuance of the initial solicitation as untimely) NAICS Appeal Deployment Medicine International, SBA No. NAICS-5188 (2011) (dismisses untimely NAICS appeal filed more than 10 days after solicitation issued) NAICS Appeal of SD Titan Resources/SM&MM, SBA No. NAICS-5187 (2011) (solicitation for leased modular vehicles should be classified under NAICS Code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) rather than either NAICS Code 321992 (Prefabricated Wood building Manufacturing), which had been the code designated by the Contracting Officer, or NAICS Code 531120 (Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except miniwarehouses)), which was the code proposed by the appellant) NAICS Appeal of Hardie's Fruit & Vegetable Co., SBA No NAICS-5175 (2010) (reverses Contracting Officer's NAICS code designation of 111998 (all other miscellaneous crop farming) and holds the appropriate code is 311991 (perishable prepared food manufacturing)) NAICS Appeal of Hardie's Fruit & Vegetable Co. South, LP, SBA No. NAICS-5174 (2010) (dismisses, as untimely, appeal filed one day after 10-day limit following issuance of solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Nelson Engineering Co., SBA No. NAICS-5166 (2010) (reverses Contracting Officer's designation of code 561210 (facilities support services) and holds 541330 (professional engineering services) is the correct designation) NAICS Appeal of AOC Connect, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5165 (2010) (upholds Contracting Officer's designation of 517110 (wired telecommunications carriers) over 541512 (computer system design services) NAICS Appeal of Dayton T. Brown, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5164 (2010) (under solicitation for an Airworthiness Verification Program, upholds Contracting Officer's designation of code 541380 (testing laboratories) over 541712 (research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (except biotechnology)) NAICS Appeal of King Aerospace, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5159 (2010) (in procurement for aircraft maintenance, upholds Contracting Officer's designation of code 488190 (other support activities for air transportation) over 336411 (aircraft manufacturing)) NAICS Appeal of McKissack & McKissack, SBA No. NAICS-5154 (2010) (dismisses appeal as premature (because only a presolicitation notice has so far been issued) and for lack of jurisdiction (because procurement is unrestricted)) NAICS Appeal of Brian Scott, SBA No. NAICS-5150 (2010) (NAICS code 113310 (Logging) rather than 561760 (Landscaping Services) was appropriate for a forestry services contract for harvesting wood products) NAICS Appeal of DKW Communications, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5141 (2010) (dismisses appeal as moot after agency changed NAICS code) NAICS Appeal of DCX-Chol Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5140 (2010) (design and development of a prototype under BAA is included under NAICS code 541712) NAICS Appeal of 1st American Systems and Services, LLC, SBA No.. NAICS-5119 (2010) (reverses Contracting Officer's designation of NAICS code 518210, in favor of 541611) NAICS Appeal of Medical Comfort Systems, et. al., SBA No. NAICS-5106 (2010) (reverses Contracting Officer's NAICS determination and holds correct code is 532291) NAICS Appeal of Systronics, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5092 (2009) (affirms determination that appropriate NAICS code is 488190 rather than 334513) NAICS Appeal of Engineering Services Network, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5064 (2009) (NAICS Code 541611 is appropriate because the procurement does not contemplate an IT contract for the design and planning of a computer system even though it involves computer services) NAICS Appeal of The Centech Group, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5061 (2009) (dismisses appeal involving FAA because FAA is not subject to Small Business Act) NAICS Appeal of American Systems Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5060 (2009) (dismisses appeal because appellant failed to respond to motion asserting that it was other than small and, thus, lacked standing) NAICS Appeal of Genome Communications, SBA No. NAICS-5056 (2009) (dismisses untimely appeal filed more than 10 days after solicitation issued and not after an amendment that affects the solicitation's NAICS code) NAICS Appeal of Davis-Paige Management Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5055 (2009) (denies appeal; NAICS Code 541712 is appropriate code for solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Inklings Media Co., SBA No. NAICS-5054 (2009) (denies appeal; NAICS Code 54130 best describes principal purpose of solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Information Ventures, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5037 (2009) (upholds use of 519130 code) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, SBA No. NAICS-5033 (2009) (upholds use of 334512 code) NAICS Appeal of Dynamac Corp., SBA No. NAICS-5025 (2009) (541712 code--"research and development"--requires both; upholds use of 541990) NAICS Appeal of Computer Cite, SBA No. NAICS-5010 (2008) (upholds classification for procurement of 517110) NAICS Appeal of Ukpik, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-5006 (2008) (NAICS appeal filed as a result of pre-solicitation notice is premature) NAICS Appeal of i2S, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5004 (2008) (NAICS Code 541990 appropriate for solicitation for counterintelligence services) NAICS Appeal of Genome-Communications, SBA No. NAICS-5002 (2008) (affirms use of 611710 code in solicitation for creation of educational courses) NAICS Appeal of Genome-Communications, SBA No. NAICS-5000 (2008) (dismissing frivolous appeal raising issues not for decision by OHA) NAICS Appeal of Genome-Communications, SBA No. NAICS-4995 (2008) (small business lacks standing to challenge NAICS code designation of unrestricted procurement unless it can show it has been adversely affected) NAICS Appeal of Genome-Communications, SBA No. NAICS-4992 (2008) (timeliness; untimely appeal within 10 days of solicitation amendment that did not call into question the original NAICS code in the solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Dellew Corp., SBA No. NAICS-4983 (2008) (untimely appeal within 10 days of solicitation amendment that did not call into question the original NAICS code in the solicitation) NAICS Appeal of Computer Cite, SBA No. NAICS-4979 (2008) (overturns use of 517110 code in favor of 811213) NAICS Appeal of Ukpik, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-4975 (2008) (untimely NAICS appeal) NAICS Appeal of Computer Cite, SBA No. NAICS-4964 (2008) (overturns use of NAICS code 517110 in favor of 811213) NAICS Appeal of Computer Cite, SBA No. NAICS-4962 (2008) (appeal based on pre-solicitation notice is premature) NAICS Appeal of Information Ventures, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4953 (2008) (grants appeal and establishes a NAICS code chosen by OHA that was not advocated by either party) NAICS Appeal of EnergX, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-4952 (2008) (principal purpose of procurement) NAICS Appeal of K-Mar Industries, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4946 (2008) (upholds use of 541990) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4939 (2008) (NAICS appeal dismissed where contract already has been awarded) NAICS Appeal of GEM Technologies, SBA No. NAICS-4902 (2008) (appeal of presolicitation notice is premature) NAICS Appeal of EnergX, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-4901 (2008) (appeal of presolicitation notice is premature) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4899 (2008) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4893 (2008) (propriety of NAICS 334419 designation) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4890 (2008) (propriety of NAICS 336992 designation) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4891 (2008) (impropriety of N334419 designation) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4889 (2008) (impropriety of NAICS 221122 designation) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4886 (2008) (request for reconsideration denied) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4883 (2008) (propriety of NAICS 334419 designation) NAICS Appeal of Information Ventures, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-4882 (2008) (upholds use of research and development NAICS code, 541712) NAICS Appeal of DCX/CHOL Enterprises, SBA No. NAICS-4880 (2008) (dismisses appeal as untimely because not filed until more than 10 days after solicitation issued) NAICS Appeal of DCS Corp., SBA No. NAICS-4874 (2007) (NAICS code 541712 is correct code for a contract for Sensor Technology Engineering Support) NAICS Appeal of Information Technology Systems, LLC, SBA No. NAICS-4855 (2007) (failure to locate solicitation on Corps. of Engineer website does not excuse untimely NAICS since official site is FedBizOps) NAICS Appeal of King's Thrones, SBA No. NAICS-4845 (2007) (only timely limit to appeal failure of agency to designate any NAICS code at all in small business set-aside is completion of contract performance since such a solicitation is "continuously" defective) Matter of JBL System Solutions, SBA No. VET-252 (2015) (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 CriterEOM, LLC, SBA No. VET-245 (2014) (affirms SBA's determination that firm did not meet definition of SDVOSB because its Operating Agreement, which stated it superseded the JV Agreement, did not satisfy requirements for ownership and control by SDV, and JV Agreement, itself, did not comply with requirement that it specify respective responsibilities of members for contract at issue) 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 , SBA No. VET-230 (2012) (over challenged firm's objections, grants joint motion of SBA and protester to dismiss appeal and remand proceedings to SBA after SBA agreed to rescind its original dismissal of protest)Matter of H&H -- DMS Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-229 (2012) (protest in Army procurement alleging only that firm did not appear in VetBiz database is dismissed as insufficiently specific because there is no such requirement for non-VA procurements, and protest contained no other allegations) Matter of RUSH-LINK ONE Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-228 (2012) (upholds determination that firm does not qualify as SDVOSB joint venture because SDV does not have proper ownership and control of SDVOSB (because of commercially irregular loans to him from minority owners) or control of board of directors of joint venture and because proposed project manager is not employee of SDVOSB) Matter of HANA-JV, SBA No. VET-227 (2012) (affirms finding that JV failed to meet multiple requirements at 13 C.F.R. 125.15 for SDVOSB JVs) Matter of Major Contracting Services, SBA No. VET-226 (Jan. 2012) (affirms dismissal of untimely protest of SDVOSB status because time period started from day notice was received by email at 4:43 p.m., which was prior to 5 p.m. close of business) Matter of Benetech, LLC, SBA No. VET-225 (2011) (service-disabled vet who, under Louisiana law, shares management responsibilities with another member of the LLC, does not control LLC as required by 13 C.F.R. 125.10) Matter of A1 Procurement LLC/JVS, SBA No. VET-223 (2011) (two service-disabled veterans share control of the contested firm and that the firm is not disqualified as an SDVOSB by facts that a non-SDVOSB holds minority interest in firm or that the SDVOSB is dependent on non-SDVOSB for required licenses) Matter of Mission Essentials, LLC, SBA No. VET 222 (2011) (protest alleging challenged firm failed to comply with joint venture regulation covering SDVOSB's at 13 C.F.R. 125.15(b) was sufficiently specific and should not have been dismissed) Matter of Fidelis Design & Construction, LLC, SBA No. VET-221 (2011) (protest properly dismissed as insufficiently specific; fact that firm is not listed in VetBiz database is not grounds for protest in a non-VA procurement) Matter of Marine Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-218 (2011) (dismisses as untimely appeal filed more than 10 days after receipt of AD/GC's decision) Matter of Artis Builders, Inc., SBA No. VET-214 (2011) (upholds SBA's finding that non-SDV had power to control Board of Directors) Matter of Construction Engineering Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-213 (2011) (for an SDVO joint venture, it is not required that the SDV control the joint venture, but the two-step analysis is: (i) whether the SDVO SBC joint venture partner meets the SDVO SBC program eligibility requirements set forth in Subpart B of 13 C.F.R Part 125; and, then, (ii) whether the joint venture meets the requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 125.15(b)) Matter of Fidelis Design and Construction, LLC, SBA No. VET-211 (2011) (OHA lacks jurisdiction over VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization's determination that firm was not eligible SDVOSB) Matter of A1 Procurement, JVD, SBA No. VET-210 (2011) (dismisses protest as not sufficiently specific under 13 C.F.R. 125.25(b), 125.26(a) Matter of METRiX Enterprise Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-208 (2010) (vacates SBA's determination that firm was not an eligible SDVOSB because the protest on which that determination was made was legally insufficient) Matter of B&C Facility Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-207 (2010) (dismisses appeal as untimely) Matter of Major Contracting Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-206 (2010) (remands case on SBA's suggestion that it may have made error in its initial determination) Matter of VETcorp, Inc., SBA No. VET-205 (2010) (affirms SBA's dismissal of protest for lack of specificity) Matter of Airborne Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-204 (2010) (SBA's OHA lacks jurisdiction over appeals from determinations by the VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization) Matter of Airborne Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-203 (2010) (overrules VET-197 below) Matter of ETSC, LLC, SBA No. VET-202 (2010) (affirms dismissal of protest for lack of specificity) Matter of Hamilton Pacific Chamberlain, LLC, SBA No. VET-201 (2010) (affirms SBA determination that firm is not an eligible SDVOSB) Matter of Michael Ogden Pratt, SBA No. VET-200 (2010) (SBA erred in concluding small business' management and day-to-day operations were not controlled by service-disabled veteran simply because the veteran was also a full-time medical student) Matter of Reese Goel JV, SBA No. VET-199 (2010) (SBA OHA has no jurisdiction to hear appeal from determination by VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization) Matter of United Medical Design Builders, LLC, SBA No. VET-197 (2010) (service-disabled veteran is not the managing member of the LLC and does not control its management and daily business operations) Matter of KDV, Inc., SBA No. VET-195(PFR) (2010) (denies petition for reconsideration of VET-189) Matter of Valor Contracting, LLC, SBA No. VET-194 (2010) (Operating Agreement did not establish sufficient ownership and control by service-disabled veteran) Matter of JHC Firestop, Inc., SBA No. VET-193 (2010) (reverses agency's dismissal of protest allegation that owner was not service-disabled vet as not sufficiently specific) Matter of America's Pride, Inc., SBA No. VET-192 (2010) (dismisses protest because Area Office decided to accept original protest as timely) Matter of Excelsior Defense, Inc., SBA No. VET-191 (2010) (dismisses protest in negotiated procurement filed more than five days after notice of apparently successful offeror as untimely) Matter of Corners Construction, SBA No. VET-190 (2010) (affirms determination firm is not eligible SDVOSB because its General Partnership Agreement is ambiguous and service-disabled vet does not have sufficient experience to control the firm) Matter of KDV, Inc., SBA No. VET-189 (2010) (service-disabled vet does not control firm's daily operations and does not have requisite experience to manage work required by solicitation) Matter of AVMAJ Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-188 (2010) (failure to submit bylaws requested by SBA to ascertain control of firm) Matter of Stokes Webb, LLC, SBA No. VET-187 (2010) (dismisses appeal not timely filed at OHA) Matter of Ironclad Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-186 (2010) (dismisses appeal as moot where agency has decided to address underlying protest on its merits) Matter of SDV Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-185 (2010) (denies petition for reconsideration of VET-176; VA's "verification" process applies only to VA set-aside program) Matter of Malouf Group, LLC, SBA No. VET-184 (2010) (dismisses appeal as moot where SBA has already taken corrective action) Matter of Chevron Construction Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-183 (2010) (SBA's determination that service-disabled veteran could not exercise independent business judgment in managing his firm was not adequately explained or supported in the record--remands for additional findings on required licenses and oral lease) Matter of Jordan-Reses Supply Co, LLC, SBA No. VET-182 (2010) (protest dismissed as speculative and raising a non-protestable issue not involving SDVOSB set-aside) Matter of Castle-Rose, Inc., SBA No. VET-180 (2010) (affirms dismissal of original protest that lacked specific allegations) Matter of Castle-Rose, Inc., SBA No. VET-179 (2010) (affirms dismissal of protest containing only unsupported and non-specific allegations) Matter of SDV Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-176 (2010) (affirms dismissal of protest for lack of specificity) Matter of JHC Fire Containment Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-173 (2010) (affirms dismissal of protest that does not (i) contain specific allegations that owners of protested firm cannot present documented evidence that they are service-disabled veterans or (ii) provide credible evidence that the challenged firm is not 51% owned and controlled by SDVs) Matter of Tellic Corp., SBA No. VET-177 (2010) (protest is moot where solicitation has been cancelled; moreover, protest does not raise protestable issue) Matter of VetIndy, LLC, SBA No. VET-175 (2010) (unclear that service disabled vet has sufficient time to exercise required control over operations and also unclear from Operating Agreement that he has power to control) Matter of National Health Recruiting, Inc., SBA No. VET-174 (2009) (dismisses untimely appeal--notice of appeal never sent to OHA) Matter of Eagle Integrated Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-172 (2009) (Operating Agreement is ambiguous as to whether disabled vet has the required power to control) Matter of Bancroft GS, Inc., SBA No. VET-171 (2009) (Area Office's failure to dismiss protest filed more than five days after bid opening was improper) Matter of Teracore, Inc., SBA No. VET-170 (2009) (whether responsibilities for another firm on another contract impedes disabled vet's ability to manage and control firm involved in disputed procurement) Matter of Piedmont Contracting & Design, Inc., SBA No. VET-169 (2009) (lack of control by disabled vet when unanimous consent, including that of person who was not a disabled vet, was required to operate business) Matter of Piedmont Contracting & Design, Inc., SBA No. VET-168 (2009) (lack of control by disabled vet when unanimous consent, including that of person who was not a disabled vet, was required to operate business) Matter of Cooper-Glory, LLC, SBA No. VET-166 (2009) (joint venture owned by two other companies is not qualified as SDVOSBC) Matter of Veterans Construction of South Carolina, LLC, SBA No. VET-164 (2009) (protest filed later than five days after bid opening in sealed bid procurement is untimely; protest must be in writing) Matter of International Logistics Group, LLC, SBA No. VET-162 (2009) (lack of unconditional ownership when there was no ability to sell ownership interest at fair value to anyone the owner chose) Matter of Advanced Environmental Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-161 (2009) (ownership and management of firm by disabled vet is not impeded by fact he owns another firm as well) Matter of Robra Construction, Inc., SBA No. VET-160 (2009) (affirms SBA determination because of lack of sufficient documentation from VA of owner's status as service-disabled veteran) Matter of DooleyMack Government Contracting, LLC, SBA No. VET-159 (2009) (overturns SBA decision that service-disabled veteran did not control business) Matter of Markon, Inc., SBA No. VET-158 (2009) (firm not eligible when its highest officer position is not held by service-disabled vet) Matter of C3T Construction Co., SBA No. VET-157 (2009) (affirms lack of protest for lack of requisite specificity under 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.25, .26) Matter of One Step Ahead Enterprises, SBA No. VET-155 (2009) (affirms lack of protest for lack of requisite specificity under 13 C.F.R. §§ 125.25, .26) Matter of Savant Services Corp., SBA No. VET-154 (2009) (affirms dismissal of protest as lacking requisite specificity) Matter of Zap Electrical Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-152 (2009) (affirms dismissal of untimely appeal) Matter of A. Grant Services, SBA No. VET-151 (2009) (dismisses untimely appeal) Matter of Command Languages, Inc., SBA No. VET-149 (2009) (irrelevance to issue of control of corporate location in United States when operations are overseas) Matter of Teamus Construction Co., SBA No. VET-148 (PFR) (2009) (dismisses untimely request for reconsideration) Matter of In and Out Valet, SBA No. VET-147 (2009) (dismisses as untimely a protest filed more than five days after notice of apparently successful offeror) Matter of Teamus Construction Co., SBA No. VET-146 (2009) (lack of evidence of day-to-day managerial control by service disabled veteran) Matter of Glen/Mar Construction, SBA No. VET-145 (2008) (dismisses protest of VOSB status because regulations governing such protests have not yet been promulgated) Matter of Advant-Edge Solutions, SBA No. VET-144 (2008) (reverses Area Office's determination on merits of protest which should have been dismissed as untimely) Matter of Alliance Medical Services of Arizona, SBA No. VET-143 (2008) (untimely protest that also raises issues that should have been raised as protest to procuring agency, not to SBA) Matter of Heritage of America, LLC, SBA No. VET-142 (2008) (lack of sufficient ownership and control by service-disabled veteran; control over "all" decisions) Matter of NEIE Medical Waste Services, LLC, SBA No. VET-141 (2008) (remands case to Area Office to determine if sealed bid procedures were followed in solicitation (which would render protest untimely)) Matter of Nelco Diversified, SBA No. VET-140 (2008) (individual was not a service-disabled veteran on required date and did not have sufficient ownership and control of firm) Matter of DAV Prime/Vantex Service Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-138 (2008) (day to day control and management by service disabled veteran) Matter of Firewatch Contracting of Florida, LLC, SBA No. VET-137 (2008) (lack of control by service disabled vet over all decisions; supermajority vote) Matter of Everything Parking, Inc., SBA No. VET-136 (2008) (lack of documentation to establish service-disabled owner held highest officer position and was member of board of directors) Matter of Cambridge Federal Solutions, LLC, SBA No. VET-135 (2008) (control; evidence: failure of appellant to submit amendment to Operating Agreement which shows control by SDV) Matter of LMC Governmental Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-134 (2008) (untimely protest filed more than five days after bid opening on IFB) Matter of Singleton Enterprises-GMT Mechanical, a Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-133 (PFR), -130 (2008) (denies petition for reconsideration of VET-130) Matter of NuGrate Group, SBA No. VET-132 (2008) (lack of control by SDV) Matter of Cambridge Federal Solutions, LLC, SBA No. VET-131 (2008) (burden of proof; email submission of documents requested by agency to verify SDVOSB status; duty of agency to provide copy of protest file to appellant) Matter of Singleton Enterprises-GMT Mechanical, a JV, SBA No. VET-130 (2008) (lack of control by SDV) Matter of Cedar Electric, Inc./Pride Enterprises, Inc., JV, SBA No. VET-129 (2008) (ownership and control by SDV; inability to cure control issues after submission of offer) Matter of McGoldrick Construction Services Corp., SBA No. VET-127 (2008) (SDVOSB's reliance on another firm for assistance in preparing bids and other services is not enough to jeopardize its SDVOSB status) Matter of E2 Si-SaLUT, SBA No. VET-126 (2008) (location of SDV in relation to non-construction worksite) Matter of MED-Trends, Inc., SBA No. VET-124 (2008) (untimely appeal of protest determination) Matter of Gonneville, Inc., SBA No. VET-125 (2008) (lack of specificity in protest) Matter of CymSTAR, LLC, SBA. No. VET-123 (2007) (lack of sufficient control by SDV) In the Matter of Service Disabled Veteran Manufacturing & ZAMS, Inc., SBA No. VET-122 (2007) (lack of specificity in protest of SDVOSB status) Matter of JDDA/HBs Joint Venture, SBA No. VET-121 (2007) (lack of specificity in protest) Matter of Four Points Technology, LLC, SBA No. VET-120 (2007) (control; lack of managerial experience) In the Matter of SDV Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET-119 (2007) (DGC's lack of authority to issue size determination after first SDV decision cited immediately below) Matter of Ferrotherm Corp., SBA No. VET-118 (2007) (time for protesting SDVOSB status under procurement conducted using Simplified Acquisition Procedures) In the Matter of SDV Solutions, Inc., SBA No. VET- 116 (2007) (an SBA Director of Government Contracting (DGC) lacks authority to make a size determination; firm did not establish its manager had the requisite experience and expertise to control and manage the firm) Matter of C. Martin Co., Inc. and C-MARTEC, SBA No. VET-117 (2007) (grants motion to dismiss appeal) Matter of Meadowgate Technologies, LLC, SBA No. VET-115 (2007) (failure of protested concern to respond to notice of protest) Matter of IITS Nabholz, LLC, SBA No. VET-114 (2008) (inability to authenticate documentation attesting to service-disabled status; ownership issues; control issues--distance of alleged SDV from worksite) Matter of of People Direct Placement Services, Inc., SBA No. VET-113 (2007) (overcoming supermajority voting requirements) Matter of First Capital Interiors, Inc., SBA No. Vet-112 (2007) (managerial experience, day-to-day control)
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 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) Matter of StrategyGen Co., SBA No. BDPE-460 (2012) (SBA misinterpreted and misapplied "chronic and substantial bias" test of social disadvantage due to gender and improperly denied firm entry into 8(a) program) Matter of Wholesale Distribution, SBA No. BDP-456 (2012) (SBA had rational basis for denying applicant admission into 8(a) program because she failed to prove that her narcolepsy and epilepsy had resulted in disability-related bias) Matter of Reality Technologies, Inc., SBA No. 455 (2012) (upholds termination of firm from 8(a) program because its subcontractor performed essentially all the work) Matter of Novel Wares, Inc., SBA No. BDP-454 (2012) (OHA lacked jurisdiction over denial of admission to program based on the fact that the business had not existed for the required two-year period) Matter of C.J. Hearne Construction Co., SBA No. BDP-449 (2012) (company properly terminated from 8(a) program because it did not deny it had failed to repay a debt to the Government) Matter of Best Technology Services, Inc., SBA No. BDP-435 (2012) (grants Government's motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction because SBA's denial of admission to 8(a) program was based in part on negative finding of potential for success pursuant to 13 C.F.R. 124.107) Matter of Loyal Source Government Services, LLC, SBA No. BDP-434 (2012) (remands case to SBA for further proceedings because SBA improperly disregarded incidents of alleged social disadvantage presented in applicant's request for reconsideration of initial denial of entrance into 8(a) program and did not adequately document its analysis of other allegations) Matter of BDS Protective Services, LLC, SBA No. BDP-433 (2012) (overturns SBA's determination that 8(a) applicant did not not manage firm on a full-time basis as required by 13 C.F.R. 124.106 simply because his full-time, night-shift work on the third shift at another firm "might" detract from his ability to concentrate on the development of the applicant firm) Matter of Unicon, Inc., SBA No. BDP-428 (2012) (individual did not present adequate proof that his business opportunities had been impaired as a result of ethnic bias) Matter of Accent Services Co., Inc., SBA No. BDP-421 (2011) (upholds termination from 8(a) program for failure to obtain prior approval to enter into teaming agreement to perform 8(a) contract, which was material breach of Program Participation Agreement) Matter of General Moving Co., Inc., SBA No. BDP-416 (2011) (upholds termination from 8(a) program for failure to pay taxes) Matter of Forrester Developer, LLC, SBA No. BDP-408 (2011) (business owner did not present sufficient evidence to establish social disadvantage under 13 C.F.R. 124.103 due to gender discrimination) Matter of United Medical Supplies, Inc., SBA No. BDP-402 (2011) (dismisses appeal for failure to respond to Government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction) Matter of JAM Construction Services, Inc., SBA No. BDP-393 (2011) (affirms SBA decision to graduate firm early from 8(a) program because its exceeded $750,000) Matter of Spectrum Contracting Services, Inc., SBA No. BDP-378 (2010) (upholds SBA's determination that individual had not presented sufficient evidence to establish retinitis pigmentosa, which impaired his vision, had resulted in him being socially disadvantaged due to his physical disability) Matter of Cybersoft International, Inc., SBA No. BDP-377 (2010) (dismisses appeal from a termination from 8(a) program whose only grounds was "unconditional apology" for failing to provide required documents in timely manner) Matter of Alabasi Construction, Inc., SBA No. BDP-368 (2010) (upholds SBA's determination that applicant's evidence presented with regard to education, employment, and business history as Arab American of Iraqi descent, who was sometimes suspected (without evidence) of being terrorist was insufficient to establish negative impact upon entrance into or advancement in, business world, a requirement for finding of social disadvantage under 13 C.F.R. 124.103(c)(2)(iii)) Matter of NuRelm, Inc., SBA No. BDP-376 (2010) (dismisses appeal from termination from 8(a) program which alleges only that 8(a) annual update, although admittedly late, was complete when it was finally submitted) Matter of Secure Trendz, Inc., SBA No. BDP-371 (2010) (dismisses as untimely an appeal filed more than 45 days after firm received the SBA's decision terminating it from 8(a) program) Matter of Indigo Spectrum, Inc., SBA No. BDP-360 (2010) (same holding as preceding decision) Matter of LCCCS, SBA No. BDP-373 (2010) (dismisses appeal from termination from 8(a) program because petitioner alleged only that “[d]ue to staff turnovers and server crashes,” firm was unable to retrieve information “which triggered a chain of delays to everyone that needed access to [the firm's] past and current tax information including SBA”) Matter of Capitol Drywall Supply, Inc., SBA No. BDP-372 (2010) (dismisses appeal from termination from 8(a) program because petitioner alleged only that it had faced "challenges") Matter of J. Millennium Enterprises, Inc., SBA No. BDP-370 (2010) (dismisses appeal from termination from 8(a) program because petitioner admitted it had not submitted required documents to SBA) Matter of Royal Engineers & Consultants, LLC, SBA No. BDP-367 (2010) (dismisses as untimely appeal filed at wrong office) Matter of Hazzard's Excavating and Trucking Co., SBA No. BDP-364 (2010) (allegation of a lack of support from the SBA's district office insufficient as excuse for termination from 8(a) program) Matter of Dominican Services, Inc., SBA No. BDP-363 (2010) (denies motion for reconsideration, which was based on fact that the copy of SBA's original motion to dismiss sent to protesting firm was not signed, a defect OHA concluded was immaterial technical mistake, even though protester claimed that was the reason it had not responded to motion (which was the reason the OHA had dismissed its original appeal)) Matter of Office Design Group, Inc., SBA No. BDP-355 (2010) (upholds SBA decision denying eligibility status to firm because disadvantaged individual did not hold its highest officer position and non disadvantaged officer received higher compensation) Matter of Young Transportation, Inc., SBA No. BDP-353 (2010) (dismisses appeal for failure to timely respond to motion to dismiss) Matter of DRM International, Inc., SBA No. BDP-352 (2010) (untimely appeal filed more than 45 days after receipt of SBA's determination by certified mail) Matter of H Squared Industries, Inc., SBA No. BDP-349 (2010) (upholds termination from 8(a) program) Matter of A-Grand Carpet Co., SBA No. BDP-347 (2010) (dismisses appeal because firm failed to submit timely response to dispositive motion) Matter of QC Management, Inc., SBA No. BDP-346 (2010) (remands case to SBA to articulate whether 8(a) firm's owner continues to suffer from diminished credit and capital opportunities) Matter of Hazzard's Environmental and Trucking Co., SBA No. BDP-345 (2010) (grants SBA's request to dismiss appeal of termination from 8(a) program because of protester's pattern of failing to provide required documentation to SBA to establish its continued eligibility for 8(a) program) Matter of David's Custom Roofing & Painting, Inc., SBA No. BDP-344 (2010) (dismisses appeal as moot because contractor reached end of its nine-year program term) Matter of Aries Computer Systems, Inc., SBA No. BDP-343 (2010) (dismisses for lack of jurisdiction appeal that did not dispute the contractor had failed to make timely submissions required by SBA) Matter of American Building Cleaning, LLC, SBA No. BDP-342 (2010) (summary decision upholding termination from program for failure to submit required documentation) Matter of ACE Sheetmetal, LLC, SBA No. BDP-341 (2010) (dismisses appeal for failure to comply with order to correct defects in appeal document) Matter of Floyd D. Townsend & Associates, SBA No. BDP-339 (2010) (affirms summary dismissal of appeal for failure to make required submissions of documentation in timely manner) Matter of NSN, LLC, SBA No. BDP-338 (2010) (summary dismissal from 8(a) program because firm's "assertion that its failure to file SBA’s required documents was the result of forgetfulness and a building receptionist’s mishandling of mail does not raise a defense to the grounds for termination") Matter of Peniel Solutions, LLC, SBA No. BDP-336 (2009) (errors and omissions in SBA's administrative record do not support decision to graduate firm from 8(a) program based on lack of economically disadvantaged status) Matter of J. R. Ramon & Sons, Inc., SBA No. BDP-333 (2009) (summary dismissal of appeal because firm already has used up its one-time eligibility in the 8(a) program) Matter of Avellan Systems International, Inc., SBA No. BDP-332 (2009) (upholds SBA decision to deny eligibility for 8(a) program based on SBA's calculations of income for purposes of determining economic disadvantage; requests SBA to do a better job of clarifying its calculations in the future) Matter of GC Upstate Environmental Solutions Corp., SBA No. BDP-330 (2009) (summarily dismisses appeal for failure to submit required documentation to OHA showing why appeal is not untimely) Matter of Science & Technology Solutions, Inc., SBA No. BDP-329 (2009) (summary dismissal of appeal from termination from 8(a) program because firm failed to submit required documentation prior to termination) Matter of the VBP Group, LLC, SBA No. BDP-326 (2009) (upholds program termination because applicant falsely stated on 8(a) program application that he was not federal employee at the time of application) Matter of Synergy Communications & Entertainment, Inc., SBA No. BDP-322 (2009) (upholds termination from program because business failed to heed repeated demands by the SBA to provide required information concerning its continued eligibility) Matter of Tony Vacca Construction, Inc., SBA No. BDP-321 (2009) (finds business owner is socially disadvantaged because of injuries suffered during military service) Matter of Puente One Construction Group, Inc., SBA No. BDP-318 (2009) (false statement in application) Matter of Vastec Group, Inc., SBA No. BDP-316 (2009) (missing "Analysis" section) Matter of Acclaim Systems, Inc., SBA No. BDP-315 (2009) (remands case to SBA to explain reasons why petitioner's response to termination letter was not adequate) Matter of JMW Engineering, Inc., SBA No. BDP-312 (2009) (dismisses appeal as untimely, which was filed more than 45 days after receiving SBA's determination) Matter of UTECH LLC, SBA No. BDP-311 (2009) (no jurisdiction over appeal from termination letter that has been withdrawn) Matter of UTECH LLC, SBA No. BDP-309 (2009) (no jurisdiction over appeal from termination letter that has been withdrawn) Matter of The Management Consulting Group, SBA No. BDP-300 (2008) (using adjusted gross income for purposes of determining whether individual is economically disadvantaged) Matter of 21st Century Technologies, Inc., SBA No. BDP-299 (2008) (SBA should consider community property laws in considering net worth for purposes of determining whether an individual is economically disadvantaged; SBA did not adequately explain basis for determination that individual did not not have diminished capital and credit opportunities) Matter of Timely Engineering Soil Tests, LLC, SBA No. BDP-297 (2008) (overturns SBA's refusal to admit firm into 8(a) program; firm's owner was subject to "chronic and substantial pay discrimination that negatively impacted his entry into and advancement in the business world") Matter of Choc-Taw Construction, SBA No. BDP-295 (2008) (dismisses appeal of denial of admission to 8(a) program for lack of jurisdiction) Matter of Kaspar Group, Inc., SBA No. BDP-292 (2008) (no appeal allowed from denial of admission into 8(a) program if that denial is based, even in part, on any criterion other than social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership, or control) Matter of FSH Enterprises d/b/a Enviroscape Constructors, SBA No. BDP-289 (2008) (dismissing untimely appeal from termination from 8(a) program) Matter of Digital Management, Inc., SBA No. BDP-288 (2008) (firm whose owner is no longer disadvantaged should be graduated rather than terminated from 8(a) program) Matter of Alaka'i Consulting & Engineering, Inc., SBA No. BDP-285 (2008) (orders further proceeding because SBA failed to deduct spouse's share of income in considering owner's net income and net worth) Matter of Joint Military Development Services, LLC, SBA No. BDP-282 (2008) (no jurisdiction over appeal of original denial based on firm's lack of potential for success in program) Matter of S.C.M. Maintenance Corp., SBA No. BDP-281 (2008) (dismisses appeal as untimely) Matter of J. W. Machine Co., SBA No. BDP-278 (2008) (appeal dismissed for failure to comply with requirements for content of appeal letter) Matter of The Patrick Wolffe Group, Inc., SBA No. BDP-275 (2008) (no jurisdiction over appeal because denial was not based solely on a negative finding of social disadvantage, economic disadvantage, ownership, control, or any combination of these four criteria) Matter of Horses First, Inc., SBA No. BDP-273 (2008) (dismisses appeal as untimely) Matter of Woodsman Construction, SBA No. BDP-263 (2007) (dismisses appeal of denial of admission to 8(a) program for lack of jurisdiction because based in part on negative determination of potential for success, which is not appealable to OHA) Matter of Caribb Dynamics, LLC, SBA No. BDP-260 (2007) (untimely appeal from termination from 8(a) program) Matter of L.D.V., Inc., SBA No. BDP-257 (2007) (Government's motion for reconsideration denied; OHA considers only the grounds for termination stated in the decision being appealed) Matter of AngeLink, Inc., SBA No. BDP-254 (2007) (failure to provide SBA with required and requested information) Matter of Commercial Roofing of Delaware, Inc., SBA No. BDP-253 (2007) (untimely appeal) Matter of L.D.V., Inc., SBA No. BDP-252 (2007) (control or power to control through loan)
Matter of Robert Beegle, Jr. - Farrier, SBA No. SDBA-181 (2008) (timely appeal cannot cure untimely request for reconsideration) Matter of Med-Choice, Inc., SBA No. SDBA-179 (2008) (overturns the SBA's negative determination of social disadvantaged status in part because the SBA examined the status of the wrong individual and did not provide adequate explanation of its determination) Matter of Ace Technical, LLC, SBA No. SDBA-178 (2008) (overturns Area Office's determination because it did not follow the procedures mandated by 13 C.F.R. 124.1008(f)(2) and set forth the SBA’s specific eligibility findings as they relate to each significant incident alleged by the petitioner in its social disadvantage and economic disadvantage statements) Matter of Colamco, Inc., SBA No. SDBA-176 (2007) (overturns SBA's negative determinations because they applied shifting standards without explanation of AGI threshold, percentile cutoff, and comparison year) Matter of CHARO Community Development Center, SBA No. WBC-105 (2010) (upholds non-renewal of cooperative agreement because appellant admitted it failed to comply with requirements of cooperative agreement) Matter of Women's Venture Fund, SBA No. WBC-104 (2010) (dismisses firm's appeal for lack of jurisdiction) Matter of Women's Venture Fund, SBA No. WBC-103 (2009) (denies request for reconsideration of WBC-102) (lifts suspension of WBC awards to contractor because, at the time the suspension was imposed, there had been no final agency decision by the OHA as required by Appendix B of the contractor's Cooperative Agreement) , SBA No. WBC-101 (2009) (grants request for reconsideration of CHARO I (immediately below) and concludes that SBA has established a de novo hearing at the OHA under the APA as a contractor's recourse for contested SBA actions under WBC cooperative agreements) SBA No. WBC-100 (2008) (throws out SBA's non-renewal of WBC status because the SBA has not established any procedures for notice of, and opportunity to contest, such decisions, thus violating the participant's due process rights) |
|||||||||||||||||
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 href="mailto:stanhinton@stanhinton.com">email me.