March 19, 2019

March 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

SBA Disappoints Many Growing Small Businesses By Stating That The New Statutory Five-Year Measurement Period For Small Business Eligibility Is Not Effective Yet

Late last year, President Trump signed into law H.R. 6330, the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 (the “Runway Extension Act”). As detailed in our client alert on the Runway Extension Act, this law extends the measurement period for determining whether a contractor qualifies as a small business concern under revenue-based size standards from an average of the most recently completed five fiscal years, rather than the long-standing three-year measurement period. It is anticipated that many growing firms, which had or would soon come to exceed the revenue threshold applicable to their principal NAICS code(s), will gain additional years of “small business” status by including (often much lower) revenue totals from 4 and 5 years ago to determine their average annual revenue. 

We noted that the Runway Extension Act amends the Small Business Act without expressly requiring implementation by the Small Business Administration (SBA), thereby allowing contractors reasonably to take the position that the Runway Extension Act is immediately effective, absent contrary guidance from the SBA. In a move sure to disappoint the many small but growing services firms that Congress intended to help by passing the Runway Extension Act, SBA has now issued such contrary guidance.

Specifically, on December 21, 2018, SBA published an Information Notice addressed to all SBA Office of Government Contracting and Business Development (GCBD) employees stating that the “Runway Extension Act is not presently effective and is therefore not applicable to present contracts, offers, or bids until implemented through the standard rulemaking process.”1 Thus, “[u]ntil SBA changes its regulations, businesses still must report their receipts based on a three-year average.” SBA bases its position on the fact that the Runway Extension Act does not expressly include an effective date or make a five-year average effective immediately. SBA’s position is in the form of agency-internal guidance and also appears inconsistent with applicable federal court holdings on statutory construction. Notwithstanding, contractors should assume that SBA will seek to enforce the three-year measurement period reflected in current SBA regulations until such time as SBA issues new interim or final regulations implementing the Runway Extension Act.

It could take weeks, months or even longer for SBA to issue regulations implementing the five-year measurement period. Until such regulations issue, contractors may be best served to conform to SBA’s stated position on the effective date, however questionable the basis for it may be. To the extent that contractors elect to bid on set-aside solicitations on the assumption that the five-year measurement period is already effective, they would be well-advised to explicitly state this in the applicable proposal or certificate submitted to the contracting agency with their proposal response. While this may increase the possibility of a size protest or other contracting agency inquiry to the SBA, an express statement that the certification is premised upon the Runway Extension Act’s five-year measurement period should mitigate against allegations of contractor misrepresentation or fraud relating to their proposal submissions.


1 https://media.wbd-us.com/30/1487/uploads/sba-gc.pdf

Copyright © 2019 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Matthew Koehl, Womble Dickinson, Government contract lawyer
Partner

Matt is a veteran government contracts lawyer with more than 20 years of private law firm and senior in-house law department experience. He represents commercial and defense contractors across a broad range of industries, with a particular emphasis on matters relating to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program.

Matt’s experience spans the entire lifecycle of government contracting, including pre-contract market research and business development efforts, proposal responses, and contract negotiation with government customers and prime contractors. Matt frequently represents...

1 202.857.4493
Gary Campbell, Government contract lawyer, Womble Bond Dickinson
Partner

As a veteran government contracts lawyer, Gary has spent his entire career representing government contractors, both in private practice and as in-house counsel to a Fortune 100 aerospace and defense company. Gary’s experience and insight allow him to provide counsel to clients, which focuses on creative, cost-effective business solutions. Gary represents some of the largest federal contractors and regularly assists small and emerging companies with understanding the complex requirements of obtaining and performing federal contracts.

Gary regularly counsels his clients on a broad range of government contracts issues, including transactional matters, such as proposal responses and contract negotiations; ethics and compliance issues; internal investigations and government audits; mergers and acquisitions; protests and business disputes. He has litigated and mediated claims, bid protests and size protests before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Small Business Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA).

Gary has extensive experience assisting both domestic and non-U.S. clients with international transactions, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance and investigations. Gary’s high-level security clearance allows him to assist clients with their most sensitive, classified, government contracting issues.

Gary currently serves as co-chair of the U. S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation’s Legal Working Group and is a member of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Advisory Council.

1 857.287.3146