.gif)
In Silotech-Apex JV, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-297, 2023 (Aug. 2023), the VA sought roof replacement services under 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, with a corresponding $45 million annual receipts size standard. It was set aside for SDVOSBs and VA made award to Silotech-Apex JV, LLC (Silotech), a joint venture. A protester argued that the joint venture agreement for Silotech was noncompliant for various reasons.
OHA looked at the following provisions in the joint venture operating agreement and found the agreement to lack the required level of detail. But it also placed too much control in the hands of the non-SDVOSB member.
Not Detailed Enough
First, a JV agreement must contain a provision “[s]pecifying the responsibilities of the parties with regard to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance ….” 13 C.F.R § 128.402(c)(7). OHA noted that the purpose of the solicitation was roofing replacement and had definite details, “providing roofing specifics, details on buildings, drawings of the roof, and locations.” The JV agreement:
OHA found this noncompliant because the agreement “does not specify the responsibilities of the parties as to contract performance” even though the solicitation included plenty of details related to contract performance areas with respect to roofing replacement.
Note that the regulation does allow a lesser showing of detail for indefinite contracts under 13 C.F.R. 128.402, which states that, “If a contract is indefinite in nature, such as an indefinite quantity contract or a multiple award contract where the level of effort or scope of work is not known, the joint venture must provide a general description of the anticipated responsibilities of the parties with regard to negotiation of the contract, source of labor, and contract performance[.]” 13 C.F.R § 128.402(c)(7).
Control by Non-SDVOSB Member
Second, the JV Agreement created problems with negative control by the non-SDVOSB member. “The managing venturer must be responsible for controlling day to day management and administration of contract performance.” 13 C.F.R. § 128.402(c)(2)(i). Negative control is the ability to block actions by the SDVOSB managing venturer, such as through preventing a quorum or having a veto power.
OHA determined that the JV Agreement documents gave too much control the non-SDVOSB member:
Therefore, Silotech (the SDVSOSB company) did not have control of the day-to-day management and administration of contract performance. Arguably, having control over one’s own employees seems within the realm of involvement “as is commercially customary” under 13 C.F.R. § 128.402. But OHA did not agree, finding that the SDVSOB managing venturer must have control over contractual performance.
Conclusion
Joint venture members must be careful that their joint venture agreements include all required information under the pertinent SBA joint venture regulations. But they also must be careful not to include too much information. Conceivably, the language about each company controlling its own employees could have been left out of the joint venture agreement, perhaps avoiding some of the problems raised in this decision.
Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919.
Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.
The post Joint Venture Agreement Fails for Lack of Detail–And Too Much Detail on Venturer Control first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
- Read more...
- 0 comments
- 150 views