Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Presumption of Loss'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 1 result

  1. 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.
  • Create New...