13 C.F.R. § 125.10

Mentor-Protégé programs of other agencies

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a Federal department or agency may not carry out a mentor-protégé program for small business unless the head of the department or agency submits a plan to the SBA Administrator for the program and the SBA Administrator approves the plan. Before starting a new mentor protégé program, the head of a department or agency must submit a plan to the SBA Administrator. Within one year of the effective date of this section, the head of a department or agency must submit a plan to the SBA for any previously existing mentor-protégé program that the department or agency seeks to continue.

(b) The SBA Administrator will approve or disapprove a plan submitted under paragraph (a) of this section based on whether the proposed program:

(1) Will assist protégés to compete for Federal prime contracts and subcontracts; and

(2) Complies with the provisions set forth in §§ 125.9 and 124.520 of this chapter, as applicable.

(1) Any mentor-protégé program of the Department of Defense;

(2) Any mentoring assistance provided under a Small Business Innovation Research Program or a Small Business Technology Transfer Program; and

(3) A mentor-protégé program operated by a Department or agency on January 2, 2013, for a period of one year after the effective date of this section.

(d) The head of each Federal department or agency carrying out an agency-specific mentor-protégé program must report annually to SBA:

(1) The participants (both protégé firms and their approved mentors) in its mentor-protégé program. This includes identifying the number of participants that are:

(i) Small business concerns;

(ii) Small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans;

(iii) Small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals;

(iv) Small business concerns owned and controlled by Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, Native Hawaiian Organizations, and Community Development Corporations; and

(v) Small business concerns owned and controlled by women;

(2) The assistance provided to small businesses through the program; and

(3) The progress of protégé firms under the program to compete for Federal prime contracts and subcontracts.

[81 FR 48585, July 25, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2014–2019 · leading case: United States v. Gorski

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Gorski (2018) ca1 · cites it 3× “4 (2008); 13 C.F.R. § 125.10 (2005), With respect to this latter requirement, the regulations during all relevant time periods specified several criteria that service-disabled veteran owners had to satisfy in order to establish that they controlled the business.”

Precise Systems, Inc. v. United States (2015) uscfc · cites it 4× “Curtis held sufficient “control” over Precise to satisfy 13 C.F.R. § 125.10 . Id. at 80-81 . He concluded that Mr.”

United States v. Gorski (2014) mad · cites it 2× “4 (c)(1); 13 C.F.R. § 125.10 (a). “Control by one or more service-disabled veterans means that both the long-term decision[ ] making and the day-to-day management and administration of the business operations must be conducted by one or more service-disabled veterans .”

United States v. Gorski (2015) ca1 “13 C.F.R. § 125.10 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 74.4 (a), (c)(1).”

Precise Systems, Inc. v. United States (2015) uscfc “9 (d), and the control analysis, governed by 13 C.F.R. § 125.10 . Id. Had the SBA intended the inquiries to merge, the SBA would not have promulgated distinct regulations with distinct criteria.”

Xotech, LLC v. United States (2019) uscfc · cites it 2× “, the administrative judge examined 13 C.F.R. § 125.10 (e), which was superseded in 2016 by 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.