The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the SBA’s SDVOSB determinations.
In a recent case, the Court held that it had the power to review a decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, in which OHA deemed a company ineligible to receive a SDVOSB set-side contract.
A large business was tossed out of a government competition because the company’s small business subcontracting goal was substantially below the agency’s stated goal.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency acted reasonably when it rated the large business as “unacceptable” for failing to propose a sufficiently high small business subcontracting goal.
An incumbent contractor performing VA CVE SDVOSB verification functions was ineligible to be be re-awarded an order for those services because of an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the VA’s decision to cancel the award to the incumbent contractor and exclude that contractor from the follow-on order.
The suspension of a small business’s FedBid account was improper because the matter was not referred to the SBA under the SBA’s certificate of competency procedures.
In an important decision for small businesses participating in reverse auctions, the GAO recently held that FedBid could not properly suspend a small business’s user account for a supposed lack of “business integrity,” thereby causing the small business to be ineligible to bid on a federal solicitation, without a referral to the SBA.
A 28-day period was sufficient time for offerors to prepare proposals in response to a solicitation for janitorial and mechanical services.
In a recent decision, the GAO held that, under the circumstances of the procurement, it was reasonable for the agency to allow fewer than 30 days to respond to the solicitation–and noted that the protester’s delayed search for teammates was a “significant reason” for the protester’s own difficulties in submitting a timely proposal.
If you are a regular SmallGovCon reader, you might notice a few small changes on our blog–those dealing with our contact information. I am pleased to announce the formation of Koprince Law LLC, which officially opens its doors for business on Monday, March 30, 2015. At Koprince Law, we will focus our practice exclusively on providing comprehensive legal solutions to federal government contractors.
Some longtime readers have asked whether SmallGovCon is moving with me to Koprince Law. Yes! We will continue to regularly update readers on government contracting news and notes right here at www.smallgovcon.com. My SmallGovCon co-author, Amanda Wilwert, will join me at Koprince Law and will continue to blog regularly, as well.
My new email address is firstname.lastname@example.org and telephone number is (785) 200-8919. Please feel free to write or call if you have any questions about Koprince Law. And as always, thank you for reading.
A business was not engaged in “manufacturing” within the meaning of the SBA’s regulations where the firm provided another entity with specifications and financing, and the second entity produced the end item being acquired by the government.
As demonstrated in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals decision, being a “manufacturer” means engaging in the primary activities of transforming substances into an end item. Merely providing specifications and financing doesn’t do the trick.