13 C.F.R. § 124.517

Can the eligibility or size of a Participant for award of an 8(a) contract be questioned?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The eligibility of a Participant for a sole source or competitive 8(a) requirement may not be challenged by another Participant or any other party, either to SBA or any administrative forum as part of a bid or other contract protest.

(b) The size status of the apparent successful offeror for a competitive 8(a) procurement may be protested pursuant to § 121.1001(a)(2) of this chapter. The size status of a nominated Participant for a sole source 8(a) procurement may not be protested by another Participant or any other party.

(c) A Participant cannot appeal SBA's determination not to award it a specific 8(a) contract because the concern lacks an element of responsibility or is ineligible for the contract, other than the right set forth in § 124.501(h) to request a formal size determination where SBA cannot verify it to be small.

(d)(1) The NAICS code assigned to a sole source 8(a) requirement may not be challenged by another Participant or any other party either to SBA or any administrative forum as part of a bid or contract protest. Only the AA/BD may appeal a NAICS code designation with respect to a sole source 8(a) requirement.

(2) In connection with a competitive 8(a) procurement, any interested party who has been adversely affected by a NAICS code designation may appeal the designation to SBA's OHA pursuant to § 121.1103 of this title.

(e) Anyone with information questioning the eligibility of a Participant to continue participation in the 8(a) BD program or for purposes of a specific 8(a) contract may submit such information to SBA under § 124.112(c).

[63 FR 35739, June 30, 1998, as amended at 74 FR 45754, Sept. 4, 2009]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2007–2019 · leading case: Ironclad/EEI v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 351 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ironclad/EEI v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 351 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “1001 (a)(2) (2007); see also 13 C.F.R. § 124.517 (b) (2007). In addition, it was the exclusive province of the SBA, and not the CO, to determine whether each of the section 8(a) offerors was qualified for award.”

Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 2× “513 (b)(3) (2019); see also 13 C.F.R. § 124.517 (b) (2019) (stating that the size status of an “apparent successful offeror” for a competitive 8(a) procurement may be protested under 13 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.