Another Big Win For Vets: SDVOSBs Trump AbilityOne At VA, Court Rules

Hand about to bang gavel on sounding block

© WavebreakMediaMicro – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Steven Koprince of SmallGovCon.

The VA cannot buy products or services using the AbilityOne List without first applying the “rule of two” and determining whether qualified SDVOSBs and VOSBs are available to bid.

Today’s decision [originally printed on May 30, 2017] of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1063C (2017) resolves–in favor of veteran-owned businesses–an important question that has been lingering since Kingdomware was decided nearly one year ago. The Court’s decision in PDS Consultants makes clear that at VA, SDVOSBs and VOSBs trump AbilityOne.

The Court’s decision involved an apparent conflict between two statutes: the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, or JWOD, and the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, or VBA.

As SmallGovCon readers know, the VBA states that (with very limited exceptions), the VA must procure goods and services from SDVOSBs and VOSBs when the Contracting Officer has a reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two or more qualified veteran-owned companies at fair market prices. Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed, in Kingdomware, that the statutory rule of two broadly applies.

The JWOD predates the VBA. It provides that government agencies, including the VA, must purpose certain products and services from designated non-profits that employ blind and otherwise severely disabled people. The products and services subject to the JWOD’s requirements appear on a list known as the “AbilityOne List.” An entity called the “AbilityOne Commission” is responsible for placing goods and services on the AbilityOne list.

But which preference takes priority at VA? In other words, when a product or service is on the AbilityOne list, does the rule of two still apply? That’s where PDS Consultants, Inc. enters the picture.

The AbilityOne Commission added certain eyewear products and services for four Veterans Integrated Service Networks to the AbilityOne List. VISNs 2 and 7 had been added to the AbilityOne List before 2010. VISNs 2 and 8 were added to the AbilityOne list more recently.

PDS filed a bid protest at the Court, arguing that it was improper for the VA to obtain eyewear in all four VISNs without first applying the rule of two. The VA initially defended the protest by arguing that AbilityOne was a “mandatory source,” and that when items were on the AbilityOne List, the VA could (and should) buy them from AbilityOne non-profits instead of SDVOSBs and VOSBs.

But in February 2017, just two days before oral argument was to be held at the Court, the VA switched its position. The VA now stated that it would apply the rule of two before procuring an item from the AbilityOne list “if the item was added to the List on or after January 7, 2010,” the date the VA issued its initial regulations implementing the VBA. For items added to the AbilityOne List beforehand, however, no rule of two analysis would be performed.

(As an aside–the VA seems to be making a habit of switching its positions in these major cases).

The parties agreed that the VA’s new position mooted PDS’s challenges to VISNs 6 and 8, which would now be subject to the rule of two. But what about VISNs 2 and 7? PDS pushed forward, challenging the VA’s position that it could issue new contracts in those VISNs without performing a rule of two analysis. PDS argued, in effect, that nothing in the VBA allowed products added to the AbilityOne List before 2010 to somehow be “grandfathered” around the rule of two.

Judge Nancy Firestone agreed with PDS:

The court finds that the VBA requires the VA 19 to perform the Rule of Two analysis for all new procurements for eyewear, whether or not the product or service appears on the AbilityOne List, because the preference for veterans is the VA’s first priority. If the Rule of Two analysis does not demonstrate that there are two qualified veteran-owned small businesses willing to perform the contract, the VA is then required to use the AbilityOne List as a mandatory source.

Judge Firestone pointed out that under the VBA, “the VA must perform a Rule of Two inquiry that favors veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses ‘in all contracting before using competitive procedures’ and limit competition to veteran-owned small businesses when the Rule of Two is satisfied.”

Citing Kingdomware, Judge Firestone wrote that “like the [GSA Schedule], the VBA also does not contain an exception for obtaining goods and services under the AbilityOne program.” Judge Firestone concluded:

[T]he VA has a legal obligation to perform a Rule of Two analysis under the VBA when it seeks to procure eyewear in 2017 for VISNs 2 and 7 that have not gone through such analysis – even though the items were placed on the AbilityOne List before enactment of the VBA. The VA’s position that items added to the List prior to 2010 are forever excepted from the VBA’s requirements is contrary to the VBA statute no matter how many contracts are issued or renewed.

Judge Firestone granted PDS’s motion for judgment and ordered the VA not to enter into any new contracts for eyewear in VISNs 2 and 7 from the AbilityOne List “unless it first performs a Rule of Two analysis and determines that there are not two or more qualified veteran-owned small businesses capable of performing the contracts at a fair price.”

The apparent conflict between JWOD, on the one hand, and the VBA, on the other, was one of the major legal issues left unresolved by Kingdomware. Now, as we approach the one-year anniversary of that landmark decision, the Court of Federal Claims has delivered another big win for SDVOSBs and VOSBs.

This post originally appeared on the SmallGovCon blog at http://smallgovcon.com/service-disabled-veteran-owned-small-businesses/another-big-win-for-vets-sdvosbs-trump-abilityone-at-va-court-rules/#sthash.7trmkUf9.dpuf and was reprinted with permission.


WOSBs and The Rule of Two

Two business woman chatting away together

© jayfish – Fotolia.com

After publishing my article about sole source contracts for women-owned small businesses, I received the following comment on LinkedIn:

“Mr. Jaffe, isn’t it still very difficult for EDWOSB firms that provide services, i.e., program and project management, to receive sole source contracts due to the Rule of Two? The 8(a) program is different in that they can sole source to firms even if there are 100 other 8(a)s that can provide that service, whereas if a client wants a particular firm but there are others that provide the service then they can do a set aside, but can’t directly award a sole source contract to that EDWOSB.

Am I correct in this, or is the program changing so that the Rule of Two will not be a factor and EDWOSB’s are following the same sole source rules as 8(a)?”

When I followed up with Matthew to find out more about what was behind his question, he told me:

Bugbee Consulting is an EDWOSB for years now and we were excited about the changes to the program, until they were implemented and the rules were more similar to other programs rather than the 8(a). Essentially, no contracting office will attempt a WOSB sole source to a service-oriented firm like Bugbee Consulting due to the Rule of Two.”

My team and I dug a little deeper, but unfortunately we didn’t have any better news for Matthew. Indeed, the Rule of Two applies to the WOSB program, as it does to all other set-aside programs. WOSB sole source requires you follow the same rules that you do for service-disabled veteran-owned small business or HUBZone sole source procurements.

Contracting officers can accept TPC (third-party contracting) when verifying an offeror’s eligibility for WOSB or EDWOSB set-aside contracts or sole source awards. As well, contracting officers can accept a WOSB’s or EDWOSB’s self-certification, as long as the contracting officer verifies that the required documentation has been uploaded to the WOSB Repository.

Contracting Officers’ roles and responsibilities in connection with the WOSB Program are discussed in FAR 19.15. If you have more questions, I’d suggest you contact your local Procurement Center Representative (PCR) for guidance on WOSB Program requirements.


Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 – Defining Reduced and Late Payments

Midsection of businessman giving cheque at desk in office

© Andrey Popov – Fotolia.com

Effective January 19, 2017, DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a section of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. According to the Federal Register, “this statute requires contractors to notify the contracting officer, in writing, if the contractor pays a reduced price to a small business subcontractor or if the contractor’s payment to a small business subcontractor is more than 90 days past due.”

The new FAR clause 52.242-5 defines a reduced payment as a payment that is for less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

An untimely payment is defined as one that is more than 90 days past due under the terms and conditions of a subcontract, for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

As I discussed in a previous post, these incidents then get reported into a system called FAPIIS, and a history of delayed payments in FAPIIS will affect a prime’s CPARS rating (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), which could affect eligibility for future contracts.

These new clearer definitions give this ruling some teeth. Since it’s possible to get dinged in a permanent accountable way that will be noticeable to prospective customers, it’s advantageous for primes to pay on time.


Thoughts on the Incoming Administration

© adempercem – Fotolia.com

As I write this post, we have a new administration that will be sworn in shortly. As you read this post, this has already happened. There is a lot more to come in terms of making sure all the cabinet positions get appointed and that people fill the government activities all the way down the line. This is obviously a big deal, since they have 4,000 positions to fill, and got 86,000 online applications and 4,000 referrals.

So in the meantime, I thought I would offer a few words for all of us to think about what we’re doing here. This new administration has established some specific priorities, and we can expect there will be as slight shift in priority from the civil sector over to homeland security and defense.

There may be some serious chaos as they get themselves sorted, get people in place, and get everything built. As with any major change, it’s bound to be unsettling and difficult. Probably the worst effect will be that the usual slippage in awards and RFP release that we ordinarily see in the federal procurement process will be exacerbated by the actual transition.

I’m convinced that overall this change can be very good for all of us in federal contracting. Although defense contractors and homeland security may do slightly better in the long run, there’s going to be a lot of activity across the board, and an uptick in that attention.

Interestingly enough, I had certainly hoped that the latest NDAA had done away with LPTA pricing (watch for future posts about what NDAA 2017 means for small business), but recent presidential direct intervention in cost overrun decisions on weapons systems tells me that we may see some LPTA activity erupt as everybody sorts out what this administration is looking for.

Hang in there, this is a natural course of events. There’s nothing unusual or worse about this group of folks from the last group of folks. And we’ll be doing this together. And I will keep blogging and tell you everything I can about what I know. And hopefully we’ll all prosper together.


Bid Protests – Timeliness Tips

Business Concept, Businessman Running Follow Clock Late Work Time Cartoon Vector Illustration

© nakedcm – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC.

Think twice before delaying a pre-award debriefing

A recent GAO case reiterates the idea that offerors must “diligently pursue” their protest options and be mindful of timeline issues that are raised when a pre-award debriefing is requested. See VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., B-412729, 2016 WL 1085374 (Comp. Gen. Mar. 14, 2016).

While offerors may request that a debriefing be delayed until after award, FAR 15.505(a)(2) specifically warns that delayed debriefings “could affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to the debriefing.” The offeror in VMD should have heeded this warning.

In VMD, the protestor was eliminated from the competitive range but chose to delay a pre-award debriefing until after the award. In that debriefing it learned that it may have been treated unequally in its elimination from the competitive range. The offeror protested but the GAO declined the protest, holding that at the time it chose to delay the debriefing the protester could have learned of the alleged unequal treatment.

By choosing to receive a post-award, “it effectively chose not to protest its exclusion from the competitive range.” Because more than 10 days had passed since the time the protester elected to delay the debriefing, the GAO dismissed the protest.

From the timing perspective, protest grounds are viewed broadly

The GAO’s recent decision in REB ROWE Services, LLC; General Services Administration–Reconsideration, B-410001.6; B-410001.7 (Apr. 4, 2016), demonstrates this point with respect to timeliness rules in a supplemental protest.

In that case, REB ROWE Services, LLC, the awardee, and the General Services Administration asked the GAO to reconsider its decision in Alcazar Trades, Inc.; Sparkle Warner JV, LLC, B-410001.4; B-410001.5, April 1, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 123, in which the GAO sustained a protest by Alcazar Trades, Inc. (“ATI”), arguing that ATI’s price realism allegation was untimely raised.

In denying the request, the GAO took a broad view of the initial protest grounds, holding that “whether ATI couched its challenges to the government estimate as an argument about price realism, or about adequate staffing, the essential elements in dispute were the same.”

Further, the GAO stated “[w]hile the agency and REB ROWE accurately charge that ATI applied the label of ‘price realism’ to its challenges only when it filed its comments on the agency report, we conclude that the protester had essentially raised, before it filed its comments, all of the elements that eventually led us to sustain the protest because the agency performed a flawed review of price realism.”

Remember the automatic stay

Most of us know that the automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act is a significant factor in choosing to protest at the GAO. While in order to be timely, a protester must file within 10 days of the contract award or 5 days of the required debriefing, it is important to remember that the stay is not triggered until the GAO provides notice to the agency.

In fact, the GAO has one business day in which to provide such notice. Thus, although a protest may be timely if filed within 10 days of the award or 5 days of the debriefing, the stay will not be awarded unless the protest is filed at least one day earlier than this filing deadline.

Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC (http://www.dealeservices.com) is a government contracts attorney and business consultant with experience working as corporate counsel for a Fortune 500 government contractor and as a private practitioner for over one hundred small, midsize and large businesses. In addition to being the owner of a law firm, Mr. Miles regularly advises clients on teaming agreements, joint ventures, subcontracting, government contract disputes, bid protests, international contracting matters and corporate compliance.

This post originally appeared at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protests-timeliness-tips/ and was adapted and reprinted with permission.


Recovering Your Bid Protest Costs

Serious business man working on documents looking concentrated with briefcase and phone on the table

© UBER IMAGES – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services LLC.

After all of your hard work winning a bid protest, a recent Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) opinion suggests that the work is not yet over. More than that, it suggests that you should have started your work early on in the bid protest process.

In Cascadian American Enterprises—Costs, B-412208.6, July 5, 2016, the GAO addressed this issue head on, to disastrous effect on the contractor. CAE was a small business which won a protest against the Army Corps of Engineers in a small business set-aside procurement.

To support its request to the GAO to recommend the amount it should be reimbursed by the agency, CAE attached a one-page invoice, with three line items, in the amount of $53,160. This included “234 hours for ‘Protest Sept. 30, 2015-Feb. 5, 2016,’ at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $35,100, and 120 hours for ‘Response to Agency Report,’ at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $18,000. Id. The third line item was for “Miscellaneous material costs [for $60].”

Several times, the agency responded that the request for reimbursement was not adequately documented to allow the agency to determine its reasonableness and made request for more information and an explanation of the hours expended on the protest. CAE responded to each request with slightly more detail.

The GAO reiterated previous rulings that “a protester seeking to recover its protest costs must submit evidence sufficient to support its claim that those costs were incurred and are properly attributable to filing and pursuing the protest.”

Noting that the burden of proof is on the protester, the GAO states that “[at] a minimum, claims for reimbursement must identify and support the amounts claimed for each individual expense (including cost data to support the calculation of claimed hourly rates), the purpose for which that expense was incurred, and how the expense relates to the protest before our Office.”

In denying the claim for reimbursement, the GAO noted that, even though CAE was a sole proprietorship, “CAE has nonetheless failed to provide any documentation or detail sufficient to support the claimed 321 hours spent on the protest.” GAO further noted that “CAE’s owner asserts that he ‘did not take any notes about the time spent on which day doing what’ and therefore provides mostly generalized statements.” In addition, the GAO stated that the claim failed to provide cost data to “establish that the claimed hourly rates reflect actual rates of compensation.”

Takeaways from this decision

Beginning with the moment you start to consider protesting a procurement, take contemporaneous notes regarding all protest-related tasks you perform so that you can provide substantiation of the hours you claim to have worked on the protest. This should not only be done by you and, of course, by your attorneys, but also all others working on the matter.

Include specific cost data in your claim. That is, include support for the cost of each expense and demonstrate support for your hourly rates expended on the protest. Notate how each expense relates to the claim for reimbursement.

This post originally appeared on the Deale blog at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protest-recovering-protest-costs/ and was reprinted with permission.


Sole Source Contracts for Women-Owned Small Businesses

Business woman celebrating on Money. Business Success Concept

© siraanamwong – Fotolia.com

As GSA Interact reported on their blog, several new FAR rules will impact small business.

According to the Federal Register, “DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, with a minor edit, an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) that provide for authority to award sole source contracts to economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and to women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program.”

The Federal Register also notes that the rule puts the WOSB Program “on a level playing field with other SBA Government contracting programs with sole source authority and provided an additional, needed tool for agencies to meet the statutorily mandated goal of 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for WOSBs.” 

Of all the SBA contracting programs, the 8(a) set-aside rules were always the best for sole sourcing. Fundamentally, if a KO (contracting officer) was willing (at the program office’s behest) to accept/write a Justification and Approval (J&A), the sole source went through. As well, many times this same authority was extended to 8(a) companies on multiple-award vehicles, so that the covered programs could use the vehicle to do sole sourcing as well.

This new regulation and FAR/DFAR change creates a similar dynamic for EDWOSBs – which is huge, because there are many EDWOSB companies ready for this, and because the 8(a) sole sourcing has come under pressure, particularly after some of the issues that arose in large sole sourcing for Alaskan Native Companies (ANCs) and some less than ethical/legal behavior by companies trying to take advantage of the program. In fact, the 8(a) program seems to have largely been replaced with “small disadvantaged” status, much to the chagrin of many of my friends who have 8(a) status.

This is definitely a major change, considering the 328 EDWOSBs and 974 WOSBs who could have received sole source awards between April 1, 2011 (the implementation date of the WOSB Program) and September 1, 2015.


Consolidation and Bundling

© apinan - Fotolia.com

© apinan – Fotolia.com

When federal agencies bundle or consolidate requirements, it can exclude small businesses from qualifying for the work. A new FAR rule effective October 31, 2016  (one of many that will impact small businesses) will address this.

According to the Federal Register, consolidation or consolidated requirement means “a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy:

i. Two or more requirements of the Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers are solicited; or
ii. Requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites.

Bundling, they explain, is “a subset of consolidation that combines two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, or a task or delivery order that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern (even if it is suitable for award to a small business with a Small Business Teaming Arrangement) due to:

i. The diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified;
ii. The aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award;
iii. The geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or
iv. Any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition.

The summary notes that, “There are currently approximately 307,846 small business registrants that can potentially benefit from the implementation of this rule. This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.”

OK, that’s a lot of technical and legal mumbo-jumbo. The essence here is a few different things. First, in their definition of small business teaming arrangements, this provision recognizes the Mentor-Protégé JV, Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs), and normal JV provisions for use in a contract bundling provision. This is important because often JVs and CTAs are considered “higher risk” in large contract actions, and this provision both defines the various potential arrangements and encourages them.

And secondly, this provides more detail and restrictions to the contract bundling and consolidation routine that so many agencies go through, and which serve as an anti-small business process because of the size of the resulting requirement. This provision explicitly recognizes the small business team types as being valid and therefore limits some of the anti-small business prejudice that becomes prevalent.

As small businesses, we’d like as little consolidation and bundling as we can get. Since this rule better defines how the government can do this, and limits who can do it and how, there will be less of it, and that’s a good thing.


Bid Protests: How to Take Advantage of a Debriefing

business people group brainstorming on meeting and businessman presenting ideas and projects oon laptop and tablet computer

© .shock – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC.

Debriefings can be a valuable tool, whether you are the awardee or the disappointed offeror. Think of it as a time to gather information that will assist you in drafting future proposals, understanding the agency “thought process,” and determining whether grounds exist for protesting the decision. When doing so, there are a few things to keep in mind:

Know what information you are entitled to receive

The agency is not required to provide as much information in a pre-award protest as in a post award protest. In a pre-award situation, the agency must provide:

(1) an evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal;
(2) a summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition; and
(3) reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition. FAR 15.505.

Post-award, FAR 15.506 requires the agency to provide:

(1) an evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable;
(2) the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;
(3) the overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;
(4) a summary of the rationale for award;
(5) for acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and
(6) reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

Always request a debriefing and do so immediately

It is always in a contractor’s best interest to request a debriefing. The request need not be formal – a simple email will do. The reasons include those stated above but even the awardee should consider such a request. The awardee can use the debriefing as a chance to identify issues that might be protested by disappointed offerors or as a means to support the agency should a protest be filed.

Be sure to accept the first day offered by the agency for a debriefing because this is the day that begins the running of the clock – protest must be filed within 10 days of award or five days of the first date offered for the debriefing, whichever is later in order to obtain a stay of award or performance.

Be prepared

Debriefings can be written, oral, or in any other method acceptable to the contracting officer. Particularly in the context of an oral debriefing, preparation is key to getting the most from a debriefing.

First, know your proposal and the source selection material. Second, consider researching the awardee. Third, be ready to ask questions about RFP source selection procedures and other applicable authorities and evaluation factors to elicit more information about the agency’s decision. Fourth, have more than one person available to take notes. Everyone hears things differently. You want to record all of the reasons for the agency’s decision, especially the most challenging ones.

Be polite; do not state counter-arguments. Your main objective is to listen and record what the stated rationale is. It is not time to make your argument or try to change agency’s mind. The time for that is when you file your protest.


Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC (http://www.dealeservices.com) is a government contracts attorney and business consultant with experience working as corporate counsel for a Fortune 500 government contractor and as a private practitioner for over one hundred small, midsize and large businesses. In addition to being the owner of a law firm, Mr. Miles regularly advises clients on teaming agreements, joint ventures, subcontracting, government contract disputes, bid protests, international contracting matters and corporate compliance.

This post was originally published at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protests-how-to-take-advantage-of-a-debriefing/ and was adapted and reprinted with permission.


Important Amendments to Department of Defense (“DOD”) Mentor-Protégé Program

The word MENTOR written in vintage lead letterpress type

© enterlinedesign – Fotolia.com

This is a reprint from the PilieroMazza Weekly Report newsletter (click here to subscribe).

DOD has issued a proposed rule which will amend the DFARS to implement Section 861 of the NDAA 2016, which provides amendments to the DOD Mentor-Protégé Program. The proposed amendments will require contractors who participate in the program as mentors to report all technical or management assistance provided; any new awards of subcontracts to the protégé firm, including the value of such subcontracts; any extensions, increases in the scope of work, or additional, unreported payments to the protégé firm; the amount of any progress payments or advance payments made to the protégé firm for performance under any subcontract made under the program; any loans made to the protégé firm; all federal contracts awarded to the mentor and protégé firms as a joint venture; any assistance the mentor firm obtained for the protégé firm from small business development centers established under 15 U.S.C. § 648, entities providing procurement technical assistance under 10 U.S.C. ch. 142, or Historically Black Colleges or Universities or Minority Institutions of Higher Education; whether the terms of the mentor-protégé agreement have changed; and a narrative describing the success assistance provided under the program has had in addressing the protégé firm’s developmental needs, the impact on DOD contracts, and addressing any problems encountered. These reporting requirements apply retroactively to mentor-protégé agreements in effect on November 25, 2015, the date of enactment of the NDAA 2016.

In addition, Section 861: (1) adds new eligibility criteria; (2) limits the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé firm may be a party; (3) limits the period of time during which a protégé firm may participate in mentor-protégé agreements under the program; (4) adds new elements to mentor-protégé agreements addressing the benefits of the agreement to DOD and goals for additional awards for which the protégé firm can compete outside the program; (5) removes business development assistance using mentor firm personnel and cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the protégé firm from the types of assistance that a mentor firm may provide to a protégé firm; (6) prohibits reimbursement of any fee assessed by the mentor firm for certain services provided to the protégé firm while participating in a joint venture with the protégé firm; (7) revises the definitions of the terms “small business concern” and “disadvantaged small business concern;” (8) adds definitions for “severely disabled individual” and “affiliated;” and (9) extends the Program for three years, 81 Fed. Reg. 65610. Comments on this proposed rule are due by November 22, 2016.


css.php