.gif)
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Misrepresentation'.
Found 1 result
-
Scenario: 1. SDVOSB (or plug in any other socioeconomic category) performing on several FFP, competitively bid, construction contracts. 2. The ownership of the business passes from father to son, acknowledged that the business no longer qualifies as a SDVOSB. 3. Made all appropriate changes in SAM, Reps&Certs. Clearly, the company is permitted to complete any active contracts, irrespective of the change in small business status. One particular active contract had subsequent change orders (that amounted to more than the original contract) based on unforeseen site conditions. Now, in the process of applying for 8(a) status (for which the son would qualify), the SBA is questioning the execution of those MODIFICATIONS as if they were AWARDS under the SDVOSB program during a time when the company was clearly not a SDVOSB. The SBA is using terms such as "Presumption of Loss" clauses under 13CFR121.108 associated with "misrepresentation". Can anyone point me to specific references where I can validate that the firm was correct to complete the contract and that the status at time of award of the original contract (and NOT any subsequent modifications) is what had to satisfy the applicable set-aside. I'm not sure if the answer would be different if this were a services-type contract and we were talking about executing an "option"...but I don't think so. I have seen several 8(a) companies land 5-8 year IDIQ type contracts with one base year and one year extensions just prior to graduation, yet still perform throughout the option years. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I'm certain that we were correct to complete the performance of the SDVOSB contract and am ticked that we have to defend ourselves from these attacks, coming from the SBA of all places! Thank you.