Ostensible subcontractor affiliation was not created when the small prime contractor proposed to hire its subcontractor’s current employee to serve as the prime contractor’s project manager.
In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that, where the prime contractor would retain supervision and control of contract performance, the prime contractor was not dependent on its subcontractor for contract management.
The VA and Kingdomware Technologies Inc. haven’t agreed on much in recent years, but in briefs filed with the Supreme Court on November 20, 2015, they agree on one thing: the pending Kingdomware Supreme Court case is not moot.
Hopefully, the fact that neither party wants the case dismissed on a technicality will help convince the Court to decide Kingdomware on the merits.
After a busy week of travel to Pittsburgh for the 2015 National Veterans Small Business Engagement, I have returned to the office to get you caught up on this week’s top government contracting news. In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, the House of Representatives adds veterans to the list of disadvantaged companies under the DOT DBE program (but not everyone is happy about it), a look at how a decline in defense spending will impact contractors, the Government starts the process of looking for alternatives to DUNS numbers, and much more.
I am back in Lawrence after two great days at the National Veterans Small Business Engagement in Pittsburgh. I led three Learning Sessions at the NVSBE: the first on SDVOSB joint venturing and teaming, the second on the SBA’s proposed new “universal” mentor-protege program, and the third on the ins and outs of the non-manufacturer rule.
Thank you to all of the veterans, government representatives, and others who attended the sessions–the rooms were packed and the audiences were very engaged. And thank you, as well, to the organizers of this great annual event, who kindly invited me to speak even though the VA and I don’t exactly see eye to eye on the Kingdomware case.
If you weren’t able to attend my sessions at the NVSBE, I am happy to send you a copy of the slides–just contact me.
An agency may not procure new services under an existing GSA Schedule delivery order if the new services exceed scope of the original delivery order.
In a recent decision, Onix Networking Corp., B-411841 (Nov. 9, 2015), the GAO sustained a protest where the agency acquired a new type of software by modifying an existing delivery order for software license extensions because the acquisition exceeded the scope of the initial delivery order. According to the GAO, the out-of-scope modification amounted to an improper sole source contract.
After the disappointment of a last-minute cancellation of oral arguments in the Kingdomware Supreme Court case, I had a great trip to Washington, DC, where the highlight was speaking at the 2015 APTAC Fall Conference. Next week, it’s off to Pittsburgh for the National Veterans Small Business Engagement, where I will be giving three Learning Sessions (and hopefully hearing more from the VA on its proposed SDVOSB program overhaul).
But for now, I’m back in beautiful Lawrence, Kansas and ready with our weekly dose of government contracting news. In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, a commentator weighs in on the VA’s proposed new SDVOSB regulations, another asks why the numbers of veteran-owned businesses are dropping, OPM violates the FAR in a contract award, and much more.
A procuring agency acted improperly by allowing bidders a mere 15 hours to respond to an amended Invitation for Bids–especially given that most of those 15 hours were outside of ordinary working times.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO sustained an offeror’s protest of the 15-hour deadline, holding that the procuring agency had acted improperly by failing to give prospective bidders a reasonable time to prepare and submit amended bids.