Bill Elliott

That was cut and paste for the SBA rep, who is now seeking a legal opinion on this point. Would be nice to know what type of entity we'll (probably) bid as, hence the question.

Thank you, will do.

My company is an SBA-registered small business. Would someone please help me understand the applicability of SBA Final Rule RIN 3245-AG94? The U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) has issued solicitation #W91RUS-21-R-0001 a.k.a. Information Management Communications Services (IMCS IV). Section L of the amended solicitation states: “A Joint Venture MUST have the required facility clearance in the name in which it is formed and in the Cage Code in which it is registered. The Facility Clearance is a material requirement of this solicitation.” This requirement is in direct contradiction to SBA Final Rule RIN 3245-AG94, which reads 13 CFR 121.103(h)(4) has been modified to read "A joint venture may be awarded a contract requiring a facility security clearance where either the joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture… has (have) a facility security clearance." The Government has answered a question concerning this point as follows: “This procurement is following 32 CFR Part 2004 and DoD implementation guidance, to the extent it differs from the SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.103 referenced in this question.” The referenced DoD implementation guidance is DODM 5105.21. The IMCS IV solicitation is not a 8(a) set aside solicitation. My company is not an 8a SBA Mentor Protege program member. However, based on the Q&A, several of our competitors clearly are 8(a). Understanding how this will be resolved is important to understanding whether our small business should invest the time and money to bid IMCS IV. I have two questions that apparently have not been adjudicated elsewhere: Does SBA Final Rule RIN 3245-AG94 have an effect on solicitations that are not 8(a) set asides? Does 32 CFR Part 2004 supersede 13 CFR 121.103 in this case?