How many times have you forgotten to include an attachment in an email? For many of us, it is not an uncommon occurrence.
In the case of one unfortunate contractor, a forgotten email attachment led to the rejection of its proposal–and the GAO upheld the agency’s decision.
Perhaps no single aspect of federal government contracting causes more confusion than the fact that the government currently runs two SDVOSB programs: one under the VA’s rules and the other under the SBA’s.
The current system can lead to inconsistent results, such as a company being a “SDVOSB” for purposes of VA contracts, but not those issued by other agencies (or vice versa). As SmallGovCon readers know, I am on record as stating that the “two SDVOSB programs” approach is idiotic and ought to be scrapped. (Okay, maybe I wasn’t on record with the word “idiotic” before. I guess I am now.)
But while I cross my fingers and hope that Congress will simplify things, SDVOSBs are stuck with the current system. And, as a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals case demonstrates, SDVOSBs should be aware of the important differences between the two SDVOSB programs.
The government contracting world has been buzzing about a two-part series published in the Washington Post last week. The first story in the series questioned whether MicroTech violated the SBA’s affiliation and 8(a) Program rules. The second piece examined a SDVOSB’s relationship with MicroTech. Now, the Post reports that two House committees are digging into the allegations.
MicroTech has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing, and could yet be vindicated. However, the Post stories have some small contractors nervous that they might be inadvertently violating the complex SBA size, affiliation, and/or socioeconomic regulations.
If the Washington Post stories struck a nerve, it’s a good time to consider an internal compliance audit. I assist companies with thorough internal reviews of potential size and affiliation problems, as well as compliance audits under the 8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, and WOSB programs. Contact me for a confidential introductory discussion about my small business compliance review services.
“Bundling” under the FAR is often misunderstood. One common misconception is that any time an agency consolidates requirements from multiple contracts into a single contract unsuitable for small businesses, the consolidation is impermissible “bundling” unless the consolidated contract cannot be broken down into smaller requirements.
Unfortunately for small businesses, the FAR’s definition of bundling is not so broad. For example, as demonstrated in a recent GAO bid protest decision, a consolidation of requirements being performed by large businesses likely will not qualify as impermissible bundling.
The government’s rules for small contractors made national headlines this week, in the form of a pair of Washington Post investigative stories. Those stories, which involve the 8(a) program, SDVOSB program, set-aside rules, and affiliation, are “must reads” for anyone in the industry–although it is worth remembering that the companies in question have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing (at least not yet).
In case you missed the Post stories, they are part of this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, along with some good news for WOSBs, a drop in DOD awards, and an opportunity to register for the American Small Business Coalition’s Holiday Charity Bash.
A contractor’s alleged breach of its teaming agreement did not provide a basis for the agency to conclude that a Procurement Integrity Act violation had occurred.
According to a recent GAO bid protest decision, even if a teammate misuse voluntarily provided confidential information, the misuse does not violate the Procurement Integrity Act. Moreover, the GAO considers an allegation regarding the breach of a teaming agreement to be a private dispute, falling outside of the GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.
A large business lacked standing to protest an award made under a small business set-aside solicitation, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision.
In Creative Computing Solutions, Inc., B-408704, B-408704.2 (Nov. 6, 2013), the GAO dismissed a bid protest filed by a large business, finding that the protester would not be in line for award even if the protest was sustained.