“….. SBA’s ability to enforce its regulation prohibiting subsidiaries owned by the same ANC from operating in the same primary line of business as reported to SBA is hindered by limited tracking and sharing of information across SBA’s 68 district offices.”
ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS:
Oversight Weaknesses Continue to Limit SBA’s Ability to Monitor Compliance with 8(a) Program Requirements
GAO-16-113: Published: Mar 21, 2016. Publicly Released: Mar 21, 2016.
What GAO Found
GAO has reported in the past that the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) ability to enforce regulations prohibiting the award of follow-on, sole-source contracts to 8(a) subsidiary firms of the same Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) relies on contract information from other federal agencies that is sometimes incomplete. SBA’s regulations prohibit program participants from receiving an 8(a) sole-source contract that immediately follows another 8(a) contract with the same requirements performed by another participant owned by the same ANC. Read the whole report on GAO’s Website…
PilieroMazza has recently released their comments regarding the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) proposed rule of February 5, 2015, to establish a mentor-protégé program for all small businesses.
Overall, the firm says “We concur with much of what SBA is proposing in this rulemaking and we commend the agency for its efforts. We hope SBA will target the end of 2015 to issue the final rule.”
Download the full “Final Comments” Document Here. which says they are “in favor of the SBA’s proposal to create one new mentor-protégé program available for all small businesses, including service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSBs”), HUBZone firms, women-owned and economically-disadvantaged women-owned small businesses (“WOSBs/EDWOSBs”).”
The document also highlights the potential benefits available to 8(a) protégés, and further opinion, for or against, about the rule changes that the SBA proposal will address.
From the latest PilieroMazza report, the SBA recently issued a Proposed Rule to Amend:
- Small Business Mentor Protégé Program, Small Business Size Regulations, Government Contracting Programs, 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business Status Determinations;
- HUBZone Program;
- WOSB Federal Contract Program,
- and Rules of Procedure Governing Cases Before OHA
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a proposed rule to amend its regulations to implement provisions of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 80 Fed. Reg. 6618. See the full SBA account here.
Based on authorities provided in these two statutes, the proposed rule would establish a Government-wide mentor-protégé program for all small business concerns, consistent with SBA’s mentor-protégé program for Participants in SBA’s 8(a) Business Development (BD) program. Continue reading
SBA 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures Beware: No Guarantee of Exemption from the Rules of Affiliation
BY REGINALD M. JONES ON DECEMBER 15, 2014
The Federal Government Contracts & Procurement Blog
Just because an 8(a) small business and a large business have been approved to participate in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) mentor-protégé program under 13 CFR § 124.520 does not mean that any joint venture between the two companies will be automatically exempt from the rules of affiliation.
In a recent, first of its kind, decision, a joint venture consisting of an approved mentor-protégé team was awarded, and then lost, a multi-million dollar U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) small business set-aside contract to design and build an Army Reserve Center because the SBA found the joint venture partners to be affiliated under the SBA’s rules of affiliation (13 CFR § 121.103).
After award, the contracting officer questioned whether the joint venture agreement submitted by the joint venture partners satisfied the SBA’s rules and initiated a size protest with the SBA Area Office. The Area Office determined that the joint venture agreement did not itemize all major equipment, facilities, and other resources to be provided by each party, failed to specify the responsibilities of the parties, and did not show how the joint venturers would meet the minimum performance requirements.
Continue reading the full article…