Source: http://exploredoc.com/doc/1127274/lukos-vatc-jv--llc
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 11:58:06+00:00

Document:
with the required supporting documentation to SBA for approval. SBA received these materials on March 18, 2013.
The date that SBA approved the mentor-protégé agreement is disputed and represents the thrust of this appeal.
is denied, and the size determination is affirmed.
properly before OHA for decision.
standard of $14 million in average annual receipts. Offers were due June 17, 2013. On that date, Appellant submitted its proposal, self-certifying as a small business.
approval of the mentor-protégé agreement.
penalizing Appellant for its reasonable reliance on SBA's June 10 statement.
issued a letter stating that SBA did not ““ultimately approve” the mentor-protégé agreement until June 19, 2013.
exceed the $14 million size standard. Therefore, without the protection of the mentor-protégé exception to affiliation, Appellant is not an eligible small business. Id. § 121.103(h)(3)(i)(1).
admit new evidence. On December 2, 2013, Appellant submitted a revised appeal and a second motion to admit additional evidence into the record.
to perform the same review.”Size Appeal of Trident3, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5315, at 13 (2012).
the joint venture, the Area Office did not reach behind any prior SBA approvals.
from finding Appellant ineligible. Revised Appeal at 4-5.
met because, first, as of June 10, only the SBA knew whether the mentor-protégé agreement had been approved.
and VATC are affiliated based on their joint venture.
not prejudiced by the Area Office's lack of discussion on this point.
factual basis for the allegations. The protest was therefore specific.
Next, ITA contends the Area Office properly exercised jurisdiction because the protest at issue was a size protest.
VATC was a proper mentor, or whether the joint venture and mentor-protégé agreements were legally sufficient.
Thus, the Area Office did not exceed its jurisdiction.
faith. At most, Appellant has alleged that the BOS made a mistake during the June 10 telephone conference.
points out that Miller, the authority on which Appellant relies for this point of law, was vacated. ITA contends, however, that even if this lower standard were legally correct, Appellant still does not meet its burden of persuasion because a good faith mistake does not exceed the bounds of mere negligence.
mentor-protégé agreement, and this statement was not in writing, Appellant's reliance was unreasonable.
and does not enlarge the issues on appeal.
the affidavit to the Area Office, but did not. See Size Appeal of HBC Mgmt. Servs., Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5409 (2012).
date mentor-protégé agreement was approved.
issues before OHA. Moreover, because the ADD/8(a)BD issued this letter after the Area Office issued the size determination, Appellant could not have presented it to the Area Office.
mentor-protégé agreement had been approved.
and the BOS's June 10 statement cannot estop the Area Office from applying the correct size regulation.
that “[t]he written agreement must be approved by the AA/BD.”Id. § 124.520(e)(2) (emphasis added).
one year.”62 Fed. Reg. 43584, 43595 (Aug. 14, 1997).
of its bid or offer.
that if SBA has not yet approved the mentor/protégé agreement, a joint venture between proposed protégé and mentor firms is not entitled to receive the benefits of the mentor/protégé program, including the exclusion from affiliation.”76 Fed. Reg. 8222, 8246 (Feb. 11, 2011).
that the mentor-protégé exception did not apply.
in writing. Therefore, only the AA/BD's approval can effectuate the establishment of the mentor-protégé relationship. Accordingly, until the AA/BD approves a mentor-protégé agreement, the participating firms do not have a valid mentor-protégé relationship and cannot avail themselves of the exception from affiliation.
Appeal of Tikigaq Eng'g Servs., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-4842, at 14 (2007).
construed. Lance Bailey, SBA No. SIZ-4799, at 6, 10.
Further, SBA argues, equitable estoppel does not apply in this case because the BOS's statement did not cause Appellant severe injury. Appellant argues it was severely injured because, had the BOS not represented that the mentorprotégé agreement was approved, Appellant would have lobbied SBA and involved its representatives in Congress.
which is “to enhance the capabilities of the protégé, assist the protégé with meeting the goals established in its SBAapproved business plan, and to improve the ability to successfully compete for contracts.”13 C.F.R. § 124.520(a).
reason for the relationship.”74 Fed. Reg. 554694, 55709.
there is no proof in the record that the BOS, the District Office, the Area Office, or the Office of Business Development acted in bad faith in any of the actions underlying this appeal, and there is no evidence that the BOS intentionally misled Appellant.
the AA/BD then ratifies this approval.
order for the joint venture to receive the exclusion from affiliation.”13 C.F.R. § 124.520(d)(1)(i) (emphasis added).
other instances where § 124.520 refers to SBA actions, SOP 80 05 03 assigns those actions to the District Office.
the Office of Management and Technical Assistance in Headquarters.
approval is not required before proposal submission.
received notice of the AA/BD's June 19 approval.
the term ““estoppel” or find that “affirmative misconduct” was required to deem the appeals timely, but instead relied on equitable principles. Appellant urges OHA to do the same here.
the June 10 notification because affirmative misconduct is not required for estoppel to lie against the Government.
actions amount to affirmative misconduct.
lor Consultants, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-4775, at 11 (2006).
Vista Eng'g Techs., LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5041, at 4 (2009).
admit new evidence when the proffered evidence was already in the record).
I find the Area Office did not err in determining Appellant was not an eligible small business for the instant procurement. The appeal is therefore denied.
written agreement must be approved by the AA/BD.”Id. § 124.520(e)(2).
date Appellant submitted its initial offer including price, Appellant was not eligible for the mentor-protégé affiliation exception.
12-13 (1996) (“Anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.”) Appellant, therefore, may not prevail based on its reliance on the incorrect statement from the BOS.
falls far short of its evidentiary burden.
the filing deadline after SBA's Disaster Assistance Office erroneously informed the appellants of the filing deadline.
appellants in Cabrini Medical or Browning Construction. Thus, those cases are inapposite to this appeal.
from Lukos's and VATC's websites. Appellant was on notice, therefore, that the date of approval on its mentorprotégé agreement was under investigation. By focusing on the relevance of the website printouts, Appellant's arguments may shed light on the accuracy of the protest; however, they fail to demonstrate a lack of specificity.
agreement was effective as of Appellant's offer.
The Area Office found that Appellant is not a small business, and Appellant has shown no error in the determination. I therefore DENY this appeal and AFFIRM the size determination. This is the final decision of the Small Business Administration. See13 C.F.R. § 134.316(d).
redactions. Accordingly, OHA now publishes the decision without redactions for public release.
exclusive authority over reviewing and approving 8(a) joint ventures. SOP 80 05 3, at 175.
are affiliated based on Ms. Moola's common ownership. 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(c)(1).
OHA deny the motion. Id. at 2 n.1.
render the regulation completely optional or create a license to exceed the length limitation by half.
of the agreement “and would have involved its Congressional representatives if necessary.”Revised Appeal at 19.
FN6. Appellant represents that Mr. Arevalo requested a copy of the approval letter, but was told that formal approval letters were not issued; rather, SBA Headquarters logs record of mentor-protégé approvals in its files.

References: § 121
 § 124
 § 124
 § 124
 § 124
 § 124
 § 134
 § 121