Photo of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Olivia Lynch

In this part of our ongoing series (see Part I, Part II and Part III) on the Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments implementing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (FY2013 NDAA) Amendments, we address the new recertification requirement that is triggered following the merger, sale, or acquisition of a firm that has submitted an offer as a small business concern (SBC).

A concern that represents itself as a small business and qualifies as small at the time of proposal submission is considered to be a small business throughout the life of that contract.  This even applies for Multiple Award Contracts—the SBC is considered small for each order issued against the contract with the same NAICS code and size standard (unless a contracting officer chooses to request a new size certification in connection with a particular order).  In other words, even where a concern grows to be other than small, the procuring agency may exercise options and still count the award as an award to a SBC, unless a recertification requirement has been triggered.

Given the great boon that comes to a firm upon award of a contract where it has qualified as a SBC, the SBA has long sought to set the right balance for what should happen when a small business is involved in a merger, sale, or acquisition. The concern is that if a SBC could submit a proposal with pricing, certify that it is small, and actually qualify on that date of proposal submission as small, should that small business be able to sell itself following proposal submission or contract award to a large business and allow the large business to benefit for up to five years of contract performance as a “small business”?  The SBA’s answer to that is no.  The SBA’s regulations as currently drafted require recertification in certain circumstances following a merger, sale, or acquisition but only once award has already been made.  In the final rule, SBA imposes new recertification requirements aimed at changes that occur within the window between proposal submission and contract award.


Continue Reading

Photo of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Olivia Lynch

As we have previously addressed, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) final rule, Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments, has implemented numerous changes to small business contracting contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (FY2013 NDAA).  Below we discuss an important change to one affiliation test as well as newly introduced exclusions from affiliation.  On the whole, these changes make it easier for small businesses to work together without risking a finding of affiliation.

Affiliation is a central component of SBA’s regulations: in determining a concern’s size, SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its affiliates (domestic and foreign).  In other words, these tests and (and exemptions or exclusions) affect whether SBA finds a concern to be small or other than small based on its relationships with other concerns.


Continue Reading

Photo of Amy Laderberg O'SullivanPhoto of Olivia Lynch

On December 29, 2014, the Small Business Administration issued long overdue proposed amendments to its regulations (with 60 days for comments) to implement many of the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 relevant to small business contracting.

Most notable is the complete overhaul of the calculation of the limitations on subcontracting requirement. The amendment proposes a major shift in the way the calculation is performed. The current method requires the prime contractor to be responsible for the specified percentage of cost of performing the contract (with variations depending on whether it is a contract for services, supplies, construction, or specialty trade construction). The amendment proposes shifting the calculation from this cost-based approach to the amount paid to the prime, which must be more than the specified percentage paid to other than “similarly situated” subcontractors. The proposed revision is intended to be easier to calculate, but complexities remain.
Continue Reading