In a recent size appeal case, Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. found itself at odds with the Small Business Administration (SBA) over a size determination made by the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). This blog post will provide an overview of the case, including the arguments presented by both parties, the key issues at hand, and the final decision reached by the OHA.
Background
The case revolves around a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the U.S. Department of the Air Force for construction projects. Both Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. and Greenstone Construction, Inc. submitted timely proposals and were selected as awardees. However, Greenstone filed a protest challenging Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc.'s size, alleging affiliation with other companies.
The Size Determination Process
During the size determination process, the area office requested additional information from Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. in response to Greenstone's protest. The appellant provided details about its corporate structure, but disputes arose regarding its affiliations and ability to execute the construction contract. The area office issued repeated requests for specific information related to joint ventures, shared facilities, financial assistance, and relationships with certain individuals, among other factors.
In response to the requests for additional information, Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. objected to the breadth of the inquiry and cited lack of notice. The area office warned that failure to provide the requested information could result in an adverse inference. However, the appellant refused to answer certain questions and deemed them irrelevant. Consequently, the area office drew an adverse inference, leading to the determination that Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. was not a small business.
Appeal and Arguments
Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. appealed the size determination, arguing that the area office committed clear error in drawing the adverse inference. They contended that the protest lacked specificity, suggesting it should have been dismissed. Additionally, they claimed a lack of proper notice, deprivation of due process, and errors in applying the affiliation regulations and three-part test.
Greenstone Construction, Inc. countered Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc.'s arguments, asserting that the protest contained specific allegations and supporting evidence. They argued that the area office did not deprive the appellant of due process and was justified in considering the connections between the businesses involved. Greenstone also claimed that Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc.’s responses and refusal to provide information cast doubt on their ability to perform the contract and raised issues of affiliation.
OHA Decision and Key Findings
After careful consideration, the OHA affirmed the original size determination made by the area office. They found that the area office's requests for additional information were grounded in Greenstone Construction, Inc.'s initial protest and were not a result of altering the focus or introducing new issues. The OHA concluded that the appellant's responses were insufficient, leading to the adverse inference and the determination that Razor Consulting Solutions, Inc. did not meet the size requirements.
[View source.]
