The Small Business Administration (SBA) Mentor-Protégé Program (MPP) allows small businesses to pair with large contractors to form joint venture (JV) entities that can pursue any small business set-aside contract for which the protégé firm individually qualifies as small. The program is designed to be mutually beneficial for participating firms, allowing the protégé to take advantage of the mentor firm’s business development assistance while simultaneously enabling the mentor firm to perform on certain contracts it would not otherwise have access to. Once the JV has an SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement, it is not considered affiliated with its mentor or protégé firm. The member firms enter into a joint venture agreement (JVA) that must comply with various SBA regulations to benefit from the exception afforded to the usual requirements regarding affiliations. Under the regulations, the small business protégé firm must be designated as the managing venturer responsible for controlling the day-to-day management and administration of the JV. Additionally, a named employee of the protégé firm must serve as the Responsible Manager and be accountable for contract performance.

Meanwhile, the mentor firm is permitted to participate in all corporate governance activities and decisions of the JV as is commercially customary. However, as the holder of the minority ownership interest in the JV, the mentor firm may not exercise negative control over the JV’s activities unless the provisions of the JVA granting such control are also commercially customary. Negative control is defined as the ability, granted by the JV’s organizing instruments, of a party with a minority interest in the JV to block an action by the JV’s board of directors or shareholders. Notably, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) has previously held that when a firm with a minority ownership interest in a JV has the ability to exercise negative control over a JV’s activities, the JV does not qualify as an eligible small business for set-aside procurements. In such situations, an interested party may initiate a size protest with the contracting officer (CO), who forwards the protest to the appropriate SBA Area Office (AO) for a formal size determination. The SBA OHA then hears any appeals that follow from the AO’s size determination and issues the final decision of the SBA. As long as the SBA determination is made in connection with a procurement, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) possesses jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of the OHA decision under the Tucker Act by applying the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arbitrary and capricious standard.

The rule of two requires that all contracts above the micro-purchase threshold be set-aside for small businesses, provided there is a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible small business concerns would submit offers at fair market prices and those offers are competitive in terms of quality and delivery. Under the recent overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the rule of two was retained for contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), in addition to the statutory requirement that the rule apply to contracts between the micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds. Notably, the revised FAR part 19 removes the requirement for the government to consider socioeconomic set-asides before small-business set-asides. Furthermore, the revised FAR 19.104, which was previously located at FAR 19.502-2, clarifies that, while small business set-asides are required at the master contract level under the rule of two, set-asides are encouraged but not mandatory at the order level for multiple-award contracts. It is also within the contracting officer’s (CO) discretion to follow the rule of two for orders issued under the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS).

Procuring agencies must make an affirmative determination of contractor responsibility before awarding federal contracts. While a responsibility determination is necessary for all successful offerors, a non-responsibility determination that precludes a small business from receiving an award must be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Specifically, SBA regulations require contracting officers (COs) to refer to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) determination, all small businesses deemed ineligible for award on a non-comparative basis under a responsibility-related factor, such as past performance or key personnel qualifications. In this regard, non-comparative responsibility factors are evaluated on a pass/fail, go/no-go, acceptable/non-acceptable or another similar basis. Once the referral is made, the SBA informs the small business of the non-responsibility determination and offers it the opportunity to apply for a COC. The SBA then typically reviews COC applications within 15 days. If an agency improperly fails to refer a small business for a COC determination, the small business may file a bid protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), alleging violation of the SBA’s COC procedures.

Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) limitations on subcontracting clause, small business contractors may not subcontract out more than a specified percentage of work to non-similarly situated entities, depending on the NAICS code assigned to the contract. For instance, the clause at FAR 52.219-14 obligates the contractor not to pay more than 50% of the amount paid to it by the government for the performance of services and supply contracts to non-similarly situated entities. In this regard, a similarly situated entity is one that, like the prime contractor, possesses the necessary socioeconomic designations required by the contract. Notably, a procuring agency’s judgment on whether a contractor can comply with the limitations on subcontracting clause is a question of responsibility, which is reviewed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Meanwhile, the contractor’s actual compliance with the clause is a matter of contract administration. Thus, both these issues are not considered by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under its bid protest function. However, where a proposal, on its face, should lead an agency to conclude that an offeror has not agreed to comply with the limitations on subcontracting clause, the matter is of the proposal’s responsiveness or acceptability. The GAO reviews such matters to determine whether a proposal affirmatively takes an exception to the limitations on subcontracting or otherwise demonstrates that the offeror does not intend to comply with them.