![]() Upon award of the contract identified in section 1.0 Purpose above, the Managing Director will purchase, in the name of the joint venture, facilities and equipment for the proper operation of this contract. With respect to equipment, resources, and facilities, the joint venture agreement stated:Ħ.0 Equipment. IEI-Cityside adopted its joint venture agreement in June 2014. (The regulation also includes a number of other requirements not relevant to this case). 124.513(c)(6)) and (2) “pecifying the responsibilities of the parties with regard to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance, including ways that the joint venture will ensure that the joint venture and the 8(a) partner(s) to the joint venture will meet the performance of work requirements” specified in the regulation (13 C.F.R. That regulation, in turn, requires that the joint venture agreement contain several specific items.Īmong those items, the joint venture agreement must include provisions: (1) “temizing all major equipment, facilities, and other resources to be furnished by each party to the joint venture, with a detailed schedule of cost or value of each” (13 C.F.R. There is one catch, however: in order to avail itself of the exception from affiliation, the joint venture must adopt a joint venture agreement meeting the requirements of 13 C.F.R. It is a powerful exception from the ordinary affiliation rules because the mentor’s size is not considered in the size analysis, as ordinarily would be the case. Under the SBA’s 8(a) regulations and size regulations, a joint venture comprised of an 8(a) protege and its mentor can qualify as a small business for any federal prime contract or subcontract, provided that the protege qualifies as small. ![]() IEI and Cityside decided to submit a proposal as a mentor-protege joint venture. IEI was a participant in the SBA’s 8(a) Program. IEI-Cityside was a joint venture comprised of Inspection Experts, Inc. The solicitation was set-aside for small businesses under NAICS code 531311 (Residential Property Managers). 15-673C (2015) involved a HUD solicitation for an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract seeking field assistance manager services for HUD’s single family real-estate owned properties. The Court’s decision in IEI-Cityside JV v. The Court’s decision should be a warning for all 8(a) mentor-protege joint ventures: details matter. Court of Federal Claims held that the SBA had reasonably determined the joint venture to be a large business because the joint venture agreement did not sufficiently address certain requirements. An 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture was not entitled to take advantage of the special mentor-protege exception from affiliation because the joint venture agreement lacked adequate detail.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |