Update to SBA’s New ITVAR Size Rule

Back in February,  we wrote about SBA’s new size rule  for IT value-added resellers (“ITVARs”) and the major ramifications of the new rule. The rule requires ITVARs to comply with the nonmanufacturer rule when reselling IT products to the federal government under NAICS code 541519, footnote 18, which has a size standard of 150 employees. This was a 180-degree turnaround from SBA’s prior position on ITVARs, which were not previously required to comply with the nonmanufacturer rule. The upshot of the new rule is that ITVARs performing . . . Read More

SBA Closes the Door on Resellers of Major Commercial Software

On January 26, 2016, SBA issued its final rule regarding proposed size standard increases to numerous NAICS codes, but one thing that could impact many IT contractors is the new requirement and/or clarification from SBA that IT Value Added Resellers (“ITVAR”) under the footnote/exception to NAICS Code 541519 do have to comply with the nonmanufacturer rule when reselling software under that code. This change does not impact those ITVAR contractors who perform on contracts where the largest portion, by dollar . . . Read More

The SBA’s Final Rule on the 8.73 Percent Inflationary Adjustment to the Monetary-based Size Standards can be Confusing

On January 25, 2016, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued a final rule, effective immediately, adjusting the monetary-based size standards for inflation by 8.73%. While this final rule may suggest that the size standards have been increased again following the increase that went into effect in 2014, it actually reflects the same adjustment the SBA made in 2014, when an interim final rule was issued increasing the size standards. Thus, firms interested in pursuing set-asides under the revenue-based size standards . . . Read More

SBA Considers Public Comments on Proposed Size Standard Increases to NAICS Codes 562910 and 541519

As we previously reported, on September 10, 2014, the SBA released proposed increases to the small business standards for many industries that use employee-based size standards. The final rule is scheduled to be published on January 26, 2016; however, a pre-publication of the final rule is available now at www.federalregister.gov .   According to the pre-publication, the SBA will adopt most of the proposed changes with two key exceptions. The SBA is not increasing the Environmental Remediation Services (“ERS”) exception under . . . Read More

SBA Seeks Comment on WOSB Certification Process

By Katie Flood and Megan Connor Today, SBA released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which will amend the WOSB Program certification process.  In the 2015 NDAA, Congress directed SBA to end self-certification for WOSBs and EDWOSBs and implement a certification process. SBA is now soliciting feedback on how to best implement Congress’ directive. Through the advance notice, SBA is providing commenters the ability to suggest what they believe is the most appropriate way to structure the WOSB/EDWOSB certification process . . . Read More

SBA Gradually Approves of Hiring Key Personnel from an Alleged Ostensible Subcontractor

By Julia Di Vito The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is undergoing a gradual shift in its views on small business prime contractors proposing to hire “key personnel” from their subcontractors in the context of the ostensible subcontractor rule. As most small business subcontractors who have been involved in a size protest know, the ostensible subcontractor rule provides that when a prime contractor is unusually reliant on the subcontractor, SBA will deem the prime contractor affiliated with its subcontractor in performing . . . Read More

SBA Approval of 8(a) Joint Ventures – What Is Required Beyond the Regulations?

By Kimi Murakami Over the past several months, our firm has been approached by Section 8(a) companies throughout the country who have been advised by their SBA district offices that their 8(a) joint ventures would not be approved by the SBA. This disappointing news came in spite of the fact that the 8(a) company felt it had met the requirements for 8(a) joint ventures in the SBA rules (see 13 C.F.R. § 124.513). Based on the varied reasons for these . . . Read More