- within Compliance topic(s)
On April 8, 2026, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied an appeal arguing that a concern’s early submission of its proposal with pricing was an attempt to “end-run the regulations” for when size is determined. In Size Appeal of DecisionPoint Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-6379, OHA confirmed that a company’s size is determined on the date it submits its initial offer which includes price, even if the proposal is submitted in advance of the proposal submission deadline and the offeror becomes large before the provided deadline.
Background
The solicitation at issue stated that phase I proposals were due by December 9, 2024, and phase II proposals were due by April 10, 2025. The challenged concern, UNCOMN, submitted its phase I and phase II proposals with pricing by the December 9, 2024 phase I deadline. In a size protest to the area office, the appellant alleged that April 10, 2025 (the phase II deadline) was the operative date for determining size, and UNCOMN was large as of January 1, 2025 (per SAM.gov data). According to the appellant, that later date controlled because the proposal could still be amended and would not be evaluated until that date.
In December 2025, the SBA Area Office dismissed the protest as nonspecific under 13 C.F.R. § 121.1007, finding that the protest focused on UNCOMN’s alleged attempt to “exploit” the rules rather than showing that UNCOMN was not small on the pertinent date for size determination. Appellant then appealed to OHA.
OHA Decision
OHA denied the appeal and affirmed the Area Office’s ruling, explaining that 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a) is clear: size is determined as of the date the concern submits its initial offer or response which includes price. Thus, OHA rejected the argument that the relevant date should be April 10, 2025 because that was when pricing would be final and considered by the agency. OHA also found that the appellant did not show that UNCOMN was large as of December 9, 2024, the date it submitted its priced offer. Instead, the January 1, 2025 SAM data supported that UNCOMN became large after it had already submitted its initial offer including price. Further, OHA stated that none of the 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a) exceptions affecting the date of size determination applied.
Because UNCOMN’s size had to be assessed as of December 9, 2024, and not April 10, 2025, OHA found no basis to overturn the Area Office’s ruling.
Key Takeaway
For contractors competing for small business set-aside work, OHA’s decision in DecisionPoint highlights the importance of proposal submission timing. Even if a company subsequently grows to be other than small, allegations of unfairness or “exploitation of the regulations,” standing alone, will not succeed in challenging a size certification associated with early submission of the initial proposal with pricing. Rather, the key question will be whether the company was other than small on the date pricing data was submitted.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
